[mail-vet-discuss] A-R hostnames, was message New draft for review

[Bill.Oxley at cox.com]

Having had some experience(bad) with what the definition of unique is,
lets attach the domain to the unique identifier so clearly it will be in
all cases unique. You don't want a remailer reusing unique identifiers
for different customers with different levels of trust.
Thanks,

Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications
404-847-6397

-----Original Message-----
From: mail-vet-discuss-bounces at mipassoc.org
[mailto:mail-vet-discuss-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of John Levine
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 8:38 PM
To: mail-vet-discuss at mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [mail-vet-discuss] A-R hostnames, was message New draft for
review

>Stepping back for a moment...is there any reason that the identifier 
>can't be 'icannhascheezburger' or some other nonsense, so long as the 
>internal network (and perhaps MUAs which connect to that internal 
>network) knows what to look for?

Within a given network the identifier doesn't matter, but I think it'd
be a good idea if the identifiers applied by different networks didn't
collide so my gateway scenario will work.

Something similar to the rules for generating a Message-ID should do
the trick, the name can be arbitrary so long as it's in a domain you
control.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html