Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions)

On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 07:50, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > > CSV is a solution based on two methods: CSA vs. DNA.
> >  CSV is a suite of specifications that also includes DNA.
> 
> The assertion that there is a "versus" between CSA and DNA is quite 
> simply wrong.  
> 
> Anyone not clear about the roles and functions of components in the the 
> CSA specification is strongly encouraged to asked detailed questions 
> about them.  That way, we will know what needs to be changed in the 
> specifications, to improve their clarity.
> 
> > >  The EHLO/MAIL FROM validation is
> > > useless if RCPT TO is invalid.
> >
> >  CSV allows the construction of name based relationships to relate
> >  mailbox domains with the mail channel, as example, without requiring
> >  subsequent lookups.  
> 
> Invalid Rcpt-to?  I suspect that was meant to refer to RFC2821.mailfrom. 

Hector was describing a decision tree where, of course, there would be
no point checking beyond the obvious.  The message will be rejected due
to the bad recipient. 

> In any event, the RFC2821.helo/ehlo parameter is is per-session and is 
> used to validate the OPERATOR OF THE MTA.  The other SMTP parameters are 
> per-message.  MailFrom validation mechanisms pertain to the SENDER OF 
> THE MESSAGE.

Sorry, this is my fault for not being explicit with these references. 
CSV only validates the operator of the MTA.  With this operator name
established, it allows a safe construction of a name based relationship
of the mailbox-domain association with a mail channel.  This can be
something as simple as a name list.

>From the standpoint of a reputation service, this information is of
little use, but for those wishing to improve operations of a mail
filter, as I think Hector was describing, such information is helpful. 
This type of enhancement is what SPF et al aspires to achieve.  I was
simply attempting to point out some of the additional advantages CSV
offered to help achieve their goal safely.  There should be a symbolic
relationship achieving these two goals.

CSV does not do MailFrom, From, or PRA validation.  CSV simply makes
MailFrom, From or PRA validation safer. 

> These are entirely different entities, and validating each of them has 
> entirely different benefits.

I can not agree more.  

-Doug