RE: Draft Charter

["Gordon Fecyk" <gordonf@xxxxxxxxx>]

> At 12:21 PM -0800 03/16/2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> >Given that this is the charter lets try to avoid all use of terms
> >that are considered contentious by anyone, in particular 'policy',
> >'authorization' etc.
> 
> Sadly, I think this would leave us with no terms at all.

I think that's what he wants.  :-)

> ++++++++++++new++++text+++++++++++++++
> It would be useful for those maintaining domains and networks
> to be able to specify that individual hosts or nodes are authorized
> to act as MTAs for messages sent from those domains or networks.
> This working group will develop a DNS-based mechanism for
> storing and distributing information associated with that 
> authorization.

I'm happy with this, as it describes exactly what the existing proposals try
to do.

> The primary current use case for this facility is to allow recipient
> MTAs to confirm that peer MTAs' actions are authorized by
> specific domains or networks.  This will help combat a certain
> class of domain forgery common in spam.  The solution chosen,
> however, should be generally useful for others which might
> check this authorization data.
> 
> +++++++++end++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just to make sure I'm on the right track with the language used, if it isn't
English or some proprietary form of legalese, I'm interpreting
"authorization" as the sender domain saying: "These hosts or nodes can act as
MTAs for our domain or network."

-- 
PGP key (0x0AFA039E): <http://www.pan-am.ca/consulting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
What's a PGP Key?  See <http://www.pan-am.ca/free.html>
GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. <http://vmyths.com/rant.cfm?id=401&page=4>