On 02/15, Kai Schaetzl wrote: > Underscores are explicitly forbidden in internet hostnames.
That's the point. MTX records are not host names. That's why _mtx would be good, to differentiate it. RFC 1101 section 4 includes using A records for subnet mapping. So there appears to be no requirement that A records only contain host names. However, I'm still concerned about the difficulty in implementation with the underscore due to default configurations (which appear to violate RFC 2181 section 11). On 02/15, Per Jessen wrote: > I'm not quite sure what that means: how does MTX tie spam to a domain? The MTX record is an A record in the domain listed in the PTR record. That's the domain it's tied to. > Regardless, your proposal and MTAmark clearly have a lot in common, to > me it seems to make a lot of sense to work with the two guys who wrote > that RFC. Purpose - leverage their work, perhaps merge your two > proposals, and most importantly: find out why MTAmark never really took > off. Yes. On 02/15, Charles Gregory wrote: > This is why I would support mtamark... It permits the sysadmin to > determine the default behaviour for his IP range, rather than defining a > dangerous default in the client. That "dangerous default" in MTX is an SA score 0.001. Or of course 0, if you don't want the information. Let me know what you think of the participant / policy records, and if they satisfy your desire for determining default behavior (being renamed from "participant" to "policy"): http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/policy/ -- "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell http://www.ChaosReigns.com
