-----Original Message-----
From: dkim-ops-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:dkim-ops-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 7:19 AM
To: dkim-ops(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [dkim-ops] DKIM - ATPS
I've seen it, with SPF records. A client may support TCP, but if the
firewall is set to not allow TCP packets for DNS, then you will have
the same issue.
So this issue exists. I'm getting support questions related to this
about once a quarter, up from once a year.
That's my observation as well, which is why I prefer to avoid designing such
that it might hit truncation limits. And a per-party record in DNS means you
have all of that space to express policy specifically about that one signer
without running into truncation, whenever we figure out what that should look
like (which is why for now I don't say anything about what should go in the
record).
_______________________________________________
dkim-ops mailing list
dkim-ops(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops