Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The problem here is that there is a big difference between what some people
choose to believe and reality. I do not see how any competent network op is
going to enter DKIM RRs if they are going to require changing their DNS
server to BIND (a huge issue for an active directory shop) or using the
proposed kludge of injecting the new RRs into the server each time it
restarts via Dynamic DNS. This is simply not production level support for
new record types.
While I don't dispute the overall jist of your post, it should be noted
that situation with DKIM is better off than MARID because a domain can
always delegate the _domainkey subdomain to something that's a bit more
cooperative. This was, in fact, how we finally managed to get our
enterprise management IT folks to support us -- they're being highly
allergic to anything beyond A records in their database.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html