On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:37:23 +0100, Douglas Otis
On Jul 4, 2008, at 5:03 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
However, given that ssp-04 made changes along the lines suggested if
there's no further discussion I'll ask Eliot to close this one
on July 11.
Suggesting a wildcard domain to publish ADSP records is ill advised.
The current ADSP draft fails to stipulate a syntax for host names,
other than to mention case insensitive per RFC2821, or that RFC2821
procedures _MAY_ be used to verify existence.
Sure (though it might have been appropriate if the WG had agreed to
REQUIRE the existence of an MX record as you had urged).
However, that is not the problem we are discussing. The case of interest
in this thread is where the domain does NOT publish an ADSP record and has
no intention of doing so. However, for some totally unrelated purpose it
has published a wildcard that results in enquirers receiving a response
when when they ask for a text record at the appropriate _adsp.whatever.
The TXT record they receive will have nothing whatsoever to do with ADSP,
and verifiers need to detect this state of affairs quickly and not waste
time trying to parse it as an ADSP record. Having all genuine ADSP records
start with some string such as "dkim=" will make such checks easier
(though not foolproof because even a randomly created TXT record could
start with "dkim-", though with low probability :-) ).
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to