Re: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article

[Damian Gerow <damian@sentex.net>]

Thus spake Dave Crocker (dhc@dcrocker.net) [06/05/03 11:57]:
> I used the word "conceptually".  Your response is mostly about details.

If by 'conceptually' you mean 'they both identify something', then I agree.

> From an architectural standpoing, both proposals seek to obtain a
> small bit of validation from the sending host, and then extend the
> semantics of that validation far beyond what is technically warranted.

My point was simply that comparing RMX to IDENT is not a valid comparison.
Akin to comparing a bicycle to a car.  Both are methods of transportation,
but similarities end there (and both have tires and both use energy and ...)

I have been watching this debate, and I have yet to see a solid explanation
as to why you believe usage of RMX goes far beyone what is technically
warranted.  The previous can't-send-hotmail-not-through-hotmail argument is
weak yet still valid, but I don't see what leaping assumptions I am making
if the sender does or doesn't have an RMX record.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg