Re: designate an email address for testing at any provider

From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk-lists at cybernothing.org>
To: ietf at ietf.org
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:47:50 -0600
In-reply-to: <27887.43804.qm at web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <27887.43804.qm at web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Nick Levinson wrote:

I'm puzzled. If you said the logistics are too time-consuming to carry
out because providers are unlikely to agree on a guaranteed-to-bounce
address, that would make sense and I'd probably drop it.

They're saying providers are unlikely to /implement/ a guaranteed-to-bounceaddress. In other words: even if you write & submit an RFC (which you cando on your own, without asking ietf at ietf.org first), nobody will follow it.

I think there's a slim chance that some providers might be okay with theidea, so my advice to you would be to go and ask them. Start withreal-world implementations at big, influential sites, and design thestandard from there.


--
J.D. Falk
Return Path Inc
http://www.returnpath.net/

References:
- Re: designate an email address for testing at any provider
  - From: Nick Levinson

Prev by Date: Re: [BEHAVE] Last Call: draft-ietf-behave-nat-behavior-discovery (NAT Behavior Discovery Using STUN) to Experimental RFC
Next by Date: Re: Last Call: draft-atlas-icmp-unnumbered (Extending ICMP for Interface and Next-hop Identification) to Proposed Standard
Previous by thread: Re: designate an email address for testing at any provider
Next by thread: Re: designate an email address for testing at any provider
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: designate an email address for testing at any provider

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.