Subject: Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.

From: Brad Knowles <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:42:05 +0100

On Fri, Feb 12, 1999, Philip Hazel <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Am I misreading that, or have you got your "yes" and "no" the wrong way 
>round there?

    I don't think so, but this sounds like it needs some more discussion.

>We seem to be conflating two different things here: the way to transfer 
>a message between hosts using SMTP, and the way a client decides which 
>remote host to send the message to.

    IMO, it's okay if the MTA can be configured to send mail via other
transport mechanisms (e.g., UUCP), or if it can be configured to transmit
all SMTP mail to a fixed IP address, or whatever.  Those are additional
features on top of the minimum requirements -- namely that it MUST be
capable of properly using the DNS and MX records, and I would go so far
as to say that this SHOULD be the default configuration.

    I am specifically trying to *avoid* tying client (MUA) and server
(MTA) together in terms of the requirements we levy upon them for initial
message submission versus the transmission of existing messages.

-- 
  These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy
 ____________________________________________________________________
|o| Brad Knowles, <[email-masked]>            Belgacom Skynet NV/SA |o|
|o| Systems Architect, News/mail/FTP Admin   Rue Col. Bourg, 124   |o|
|o| Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.11.11/12.49         B-1140 Brussels       |o|
|o| http://www.skynet.be                     Belgium               |o|
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
                The Sky is no longer the limit

---

From: Philip Hazel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:59:12 +0000 (BST)

You said:

>  >  -- should we try to outright prohibit clients or servers              
>  >     that do name resolution other than through the DNS?                
>                                                                            
>      I would say that the answer to this question is "depends".             
>                                                                                  
>      If we're going to handle message submission by "dumb" clients as part       
>  of this document, then yes (although I think it should be in a separate         
>  section).       

It seemed to me that if we are going handle message submission by "dumb" 
clients (that, one assumes, send everything to some smart host), then 
the answer must be "No, we should not try to prohibit clients or servers 
that do name resolution other than through the DNS." because the dumb 
clients do not use the DNS.

What have I misunderstood?

-- 
Philip Hazel            University of Cambridge Computing Service,
[email-masked]      Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.

---

From: Brad Knowles <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:31:26 +0100

>clients do not use the DNS.

    dumb clients != servers.  MTAs should universally be assumed to be at
least minimally intelligent enough to be able to properly use the DNS and
MX records.

    The question is whether "dumb clients" (e.g., Eudora, Pine, etc...)
should be covered by the same document, since they can largely be assumed
to be dependant on whatever host name resolution capabilities do/do not
exist in the host OS they are dependant upon.

    I don't care if we handle clients and servers in two separate
standards documents, or as two separate parts of this one.  But the
distinction needs to be made, and a different set of requirements need to
be levied upon them (as appropriate to their function).