If we start adding various messaging such as with DSNs...I don't think
that we should be hijacking a sender's email address to carry various
protocol information.
Of course, that's just my opinion and why it's merely a recommendation
rather than a must, shall...
-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Peter
Kay
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 12:08 PM
To: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance
I finally had a chance to come up for air to respond to Eric/Yakov's
draft
at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-cri-00.txt .
ASRG owes you much for your hard work in creating this document and I
personally thank you for furthering an important area of
interoperability.
On loop avoidance section, specifically:
"For CRI systems that issue challenge messages, it is also recommended
that each CRI system use a local systemwide user, such as cri@foo.com,
for issuing challenges rather than preserving the original sender's
email address as the sender of the challenge message."
We disgree.
Most CR systems automatically/dynamically add the recipient to the
sender's whitelist. So if I send an email to eric@cri.com, he's
automatically added to my whitelist. If the mail-from on his
challenge
is eric@cri.com, his email comes straight to my inbox without delays
or
filters and certainly won't get challenged. If the mail-from on his
challenge is "challenger@cri.com", the CRI protocol needs to be
invoked,
possibly creating unecessary overhead.
Keeping the mail-from consistent allows CRI systems to naturally
interoperate and assuming that the CR system adds recipients to the
whitelist, elegantly solves the problem of CR systems challenging
other
challenges.
Peter
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg