Re: [anti-spam-wg] Fwd: IRT abuse-mailbox things...

  • To: Peter Koch pk@localhost
  • From: Balint Nagy Endre bne@localhost
  • Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:53:33 +0100

On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 08:27:13PM +0100, Peter Koch wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:30:16PM +0100, Martin Neitzel wrote:
> 
> > Is an RP entry for a domain name supposed to have coverage about
> > its sub-domain unless more specific entries exist?  In other words:
> > If foo.bar.example.com is source of some trouble but doesn't have an
> > RP RR, and neither does bar.example.com, would it be OK to contact
> > an RP for example.com?  (Same situation for in-addr, of course.)
> 
> RFC 1183 is silent about this as it is silent about other aspects of the
> RP RR. For example, it does not say whether RP is more like an admin-c
> or a tech-c or other distinctions that were made after 1990.
> It does not talk about applying RP to whole domains (other than saying
> that RP is not only for the leaves) and it does not say anything about
> RP being applied in the IN-ADDR tree. That doesn't prohibit its use
> there, but just there is no "resolution context".

Don't forget the fact, this RFC was an experimental one, and never went
to standards track. (FYI: experimental protocols aren't endorsed by IETF,
and aren't for "production" purposes.) By the past tense I mean that an
experiment can't last for 17 years. Consequently, discussion about RP RR
is useless from a practical viewpoint.

Cheers
	Andrew. "Bálint-Nagy Endre" bne@localhost