Re: IM2000 RNASP -- identifying message stores to recipients

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <[email protected]> wrote:
> CC> The problem is the whack-a-mole game, which is slightly 
> CC> different in each of these two cases.  
> 
> Ah, yes.  I was taking the slightly more draconian view that for general
> Internet mail it seems probable that most people would simply decide to
> discard all notifications that didn't use domain names.

Does this mean that (a) you see my concern with use of address literals to
specify the message store in notifications, (b) that you are inclined to
disallow such use of address literals, both, or neither?

Use of domain names will also provide some smaller supplementary benefits -- a
notification need only provide one name, as multiple addresses can be handled
by having several A/AAAA records in DNS for the name provided in the SRV
response.  You could also direct people to the nearest server this way using
standard geographic-based DNS answers, but you couldn't do this with address
literals.

Charles
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon                           <[email protected]>
GPL'ed software available at:     http://www.qcc.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------