What a ton of mail to catch up on.
We don't need this kind of complexity in my view. A delegation mechanism
already exists. I don't see any good reason (so far) for embracing a whole
other set of problems trying to reinvent something that already works.
--
Arvel
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
william(at)elan.net
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 10:19 AM
To: Jim Fenton
Cc: IETF-DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains
I've proposed before that in case of large number of domains SPF-like
macro expansion be allowed in place of actual domain.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Jim Fenton wrote:
[This is the first of a two messages outlining my concerns about SSP
Designated Signing Domains. I'll break each category of concerns into a
separate thread.]
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html