[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: TECH-ERROR: PTR should not be recommended against in -protocol

To: Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: TECH-ERROR: PTR should not be recommended against in -protocol
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:43:16 +0200
Cc: IETF MARID WG <ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-mxcomp.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mxcomp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Organization: NIC France
References: <>
Sender: owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i

[IMHO, it should be DEPLOY and not TECH-ERROR.]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:37:05PM -0700,
 Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote 
 a message of 8 lines which said:

> PTR has useful semantics and has the same potential overhead as MX.
> It should not be recommended against.  At most, "A" should be
> recommended over both "MX" and "PTR"

Shouldn't it be an issue is for future HOWTOs or "best practices"
document, not for -protocol?

References:
- TECH-ERROR: PTR should not be recommended against in -protocol
  - From: Daniel Quinlan

Prev by Date: Re: TECH-OMISSION: billing.victim.com is possible
Next by Date: IDN and Sender-ID (Was: some other questions/comments
Previous by thread: TECH-ERROR: PTR should not be recommended against in -protocol
Next by thread: DOC-BUG: include: would be clearer with examples in -protocol
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread