Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id WAA00417; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 22:26:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.10); Wed, 17 Jun 1998 22:25:36 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id WAA00322; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 22:25:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from resnick1.qualcomm.com (resnick1.qualcomm.com [206.139.85.98]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id WAA00308; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 22:25:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (206.139.85.99) by resnick1.qualcomm.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.1); Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:25:05 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19980614233736.3313.qmail@cr.yp.to> X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 4.1a12-6.98] Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:25:03 -0500 To: drums@cs.utk.edu From: Pete Resnick Subject: Re: numeric MX records On 6/14/98 at 11:37 PM +0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote: >So I suggest that 821bis [...] (2) explain that numeric MX records are >prohibited until January 2002... Whatever else is done with the substantive piece of this particular issue (and I remain agnostic on that), I strongly object to the above. We have no basis to believe that in January 2002 (or next week for that matter) that something magical is going to change. If come 2002 we find that numeric MX records work fine, then we publish a new RFC documenting that. If we find that they are still troublesome and not worth supporting at all, we can publish that. By 2002, I expect lots of documents will update mail standards just as they have done in the past. I find any of these "flag day" pronouncements in current documents utterly without precedent, completely arbitrary, and useless. They do not add any useful information for an implementor. pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated Work: (217)337-6377 or (619)651-4478 Fax: (217)337-1980 or (619)651-1102