nanog mailing list archives
Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article]
From: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews () isc org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:05:05 +1100 (EST)
What is wrong with MTAMARK?
As currently described it doesn't fit well with RFC 2317
style delegations. They would need to be converted to use
DNAME instead of CNAME which requires all the delegating
servers to be upgraded to support DNAME.
There are other issues but hear is not the correct place
to debate them.
Current thread:
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure, (continued)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure John Levine (Jan 13)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure Markus Stumpf (Jan 24)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 24)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure Markus Stumpf (Jan 25)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 25)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure Markus Stumpf (Jan 25)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure J.D. Falk (Jan 25)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 25)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure Markus Stumpf (Jan 25)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 25)
- Message not available
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Mark Andrews (Jan 13)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Owen DeLong (Jan 13)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] william(at)elan.net (Jan 13)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 13)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Todd Vierling (Jan 14)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Mark Andrews (Jan 14)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Paul Vixie (Jan 14)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Markus Stumpf (Jan 24)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Mark Andrews (Jan 24)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Markus Stumpf (Jan 25)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Mark Andrews (Jan 25)