Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...

["Paul Ferguson" <fergdawg () netzero net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- -- Douglas Otis <dotis () mail-abuse org> wrote:

> A clearer and safer strategy would be to insist that anyone who cares
> about their email delivery, publish a valid MX record.  Especially when
> the domain is that of a government agency dealing with emergencies.  At
> least FEMA now publishes an MX record.  This requirement should have
> been imposed long ago. : )

Let's be clear here -- the fact that a particular domain does, or
does not have an MX associated with it, is a separate issue from what
this thread originally began: domain tasting, and the "gaming" of
the domain registry system for bad actors.

Now, while these issues may indeed be related, the whole MX record
thing relates specifically to the issue of spamming -- and there
are even larger issues involved here (aside from spamming). :-)

Not to demean your point, but just wanted to clarify a couple of
talking points.

There are completely valid reason why domains can be registered
which do not have associated MX records. I can think of several
right off of the top-of-my-head.

Gaming the domain registry system for illegitimate uses -- that's
my main sticking point.

Cheers,

- - ferg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014)

wj8DBQFGwoxUq1pz9mNUZTMRAiNmAJ9M4vhP2Nh4zQbBsMiF3RAJCS8yWgCgrKjf
P/FRS+0SNyE59NK2KrfcnUo=
=Aegb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg(at)netzero.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/