DNA (was: Re: [spf-help] Re: SPF and SenderID)

>  but on the other hand it's specifically tailored to client SMTP
>  ("_VOUCH._SMTP" etc.).  the EHLO domain name can be chosen relatively
>  arbitrarily, and you should be careful not to claim that reputable use
>  of the EHLO name extends to other services.

that might be why the _vouch qualifies (is specifically linked to) _smtp.


>  if DNA can be applied to identities
>  established with mechanisms other than the implied CSV-CSA, this MUST in
>  my humble opinion be tagged in the accreditation record with a service
>  different from "MARID", and as such the interpration will be out of
>  scope for the CSV-DNA specification.  we do not want to (potentially)
>  repeat the MAIL FROM vs. PRA mistake, do we?

I've read this paragraph several times.  I am simply not understanding it.  At 
the least, I have no idea what the reference to tagging with a service different 
from marid means.

>
> > >  as the two reputations in CSV aren't connected, it is safe to say that
> > >  the recovery will be quick...
> > >
> >  No doubt my confusion is from not reading this thread carefully enough,
> >  but I do
> >  not know what "two" reputations are being referenced.  CSV deals with one
> >  identity, namely the host name provided in the client smtp's helo/ehlo
> >  command.
> >
>  the scenario was that a domain owner had chosen an e-mail provider with
>  bad reputation for its MTA name.  if the domain owner switches e-mail
>  provider, the new provider's MTA name will be completely independent,
>  and the domain owner's sent e-mail will instaneously be rid of the bad
>  reputation.

That's why the helo/ehlo name is associated with the MTA operator.  Your 
phrasing suggests that the "domain owner" is somehow separate from the "email 
provider", whereas the ehlo name IS the email provider.


  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net