On 31 maj 2010, at 08.03, Mark Andrews wrote: > MTAs should never search. MX records are absolute (explict or > implicit). Agree. > MSAs should only search to qualify unqualified domains in user > submitted data. I agree with this as well. These are just two details that have not been clear in some drafty-draft documents I have seen on "SMTP and IPv6". > Just curious. What percentage addresses in your address book are > not fully qualified. I know I gave up on unqualified address back > in the early '90s. Also are all the search element served locally > or do you need to do a remote lookup for them? I really think we should "get rid of" the search path in resolvers. > And it shouldn't be exponential growth. Double maybe. If you have search path, and then choice of IPv4 and IPv6 transport for DNS, and then A and AAAA to look up for the MTA you connect to, that at least multiplies the number of choices. The best is double. Then in some cases it is worse. It all works pretty well if the client have IPv4 and IPv6 _AND_ both works. But to some degree the functionality and user experience goes down if either of IPv4 or IPv6 have problems. Anyway, the biggest problem is still, as you say, that we do not really know... >> For me it worked better than dual stack, when accessing things that was >> reachable over IPv6. But that was with my OS (MacOSX) that have >> relatively good IPv6 support. > > And problems with its resolver trying to be too smart. :-) You bet! Patrik
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf