Re: Initial stab at a proposal document

Hadmut Danisch <[email protected]> wrote:
>   "SMTP MAIL" is difficult to understand. should write Envelope
>    Sender address as given in the SMTP MAIL FROM: command.

  I'll add that.  The use of "SMTP MAIL" was an attempt to use the
vocabulary from RFC's 821 and 2821.

> Forgery: 
> 
>   You can't have consent or knowledge of a domain. You need to
>   have it from the owner, admin, representative, responsible person...

  The only way we can know the consent of the owner is by querying the
domain, usually via DNS.  I'll add some text saying so.

>   Mention: It is up to the receiving MTA to reject mails without 
>   a proper domain name.

  I want to avoid recommendations in the document.  Rejecting the
message is local policy for an MTA, and outside of the scope of the
proposal.

  The most I'd be willing to say would be that MTA's may often choose
to reject such messages.

>   Proposal: Do not check EHLO if sender address was given by default.
>   New RMX entry "EHLO:" gives permission to check EHLO if sender
>   address check failed.

  OK.  I see the checks for EHLO and MAIL FROM as often orthogonal.
In cases where they are not, we should have text explaining why, and
what to do.

> Roaming User:
> 
>   Other methods: Bidirectional POP, IMAP, UUCP,...
>      (anything except SMTP)

  SUBMIT, etc.  I'll add those.  With the huge number of options
available to roaming users, I fail to see why they're so dead-set
against changing their ways.  All of the above methods are
functionally equivalent to SMTP for the roaming user, but are MUCH
friendlier to everyone else in the network.

> References to all existing proposals/drafts the meta-proposal is
> based on should be included.

  I'll add those in.

  Alan DeKok.