> > > Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > > >> I like Keith's terms MON / MRN (mail originating / receiving > >> networks) better, because seen as sets of systems they can be > >> different. An outsourced backup MX would be still a part of > >> the "MRN" (if I got this right), but not belong to the same > >> "COG". MUAs also belong to one or more MONs / MRNs, but not > >> necessarily to the same "COG" as the correponding MSA / MDA. > > > > Yup. > > > 1. Having the term refer to either origination or reception means we need > multiple terms. I am seeking a single term. I coined separate terms because I found that I could not clearly describe the appropriate behavior using a single term. The requirements for processing of mail by an origination network are different than those for a reception network. When I coined MON and MRN I did so after first trying to refine the text without defining new terms, and failing to produce something that seemed sufficiently clear or precise. Of course, someone else might have better skill. > 2. Having the termr efer to either origination or reception ignores transit > operations. The term needs to cover those activities, too. I haven't seen a need to include transit operations in either case, and to me it seems like that would make it muddier. The whole assumption behind discouraging third-party relaying is that a mail network should only process messages that were either originated from within that network, or intended for a recipient within that network. This implies that "transit" operations - which I take to mean a relay by an MTA that has no relationship with either the originator or the recipient - are discouraged. Even when mail handling is "outsourced", it must still follow rules appropriate to the role it is performing - whether it is relaying the mail on the originator's behalf (because it has an arrangement with the originator) or on the recipient's behalf (because it has an arrangement with the recipient). If the network isn't relaying the mail on the behalf of either party, that's third-party relaying. Even when the same mail network provides service to both the sender and recipient, it's important to implement sender and recipient policies in the right order. If the sender (or sender's domain) requires that outgoing mail be authenticated, it doesn' t matter whether the recipient is handled by that mail network or not - the submission should still be rejected. Similarly, if the recipient (or recipient's domain) has a policy of rejecting mail according to certain criteria, the fact that the message was sent from within the same network is irrelevant, because if both - the message should still be rejected. > 3. Whether an outsourced activity falls under the administrative policies > of the client or the operator is an interesting question, and not one with > an obvious answer. So the common term needs to permit either answer. Or perhaps trying to describe both behaviors using only one set of terms obscures an answer that would otherwise be obvious. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf