While on the topic of "o=", how about allowing a list of approved third
party signers to be included, rather than just declaring that either no
third party signing is allowed or everyone and their mother can sign on your
behalf?
This seems like an obvious improvement that could be backwards-compatible
with the current draft and would allow senders to explicitly enumerate those
third parties that are allowed to sign on their behalf.
If I am missing some other way to do this or there is some reason why this
makes no sense, just explain it to me.
- Mike Wolf
On 3/27/06, Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> wrote:
I make no assumption on the question of TXT versus other DNS RR's at
all. I view this topic to be totally orthogonal to the DNS question and
unrelated. I see having o=~ as difficult to remember, describe and use,
irrespective of what the DNS record looks like otherwise.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Mark Delany wrote:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 10:45:31PM -0500, Tony Hansen allegedly wrote:
As promised at the dkim meeting, I'm resending a suggestion about o=
that was sent in November and again in February.
At the Wednesday meeting, it was suggested that we replace the single
character o=? (etc.) tags with tags like o=WEAK (etc.). The thrust of
the messages was that we should use something that is even more
meaningful.
One question Tony. Are you assuming that TXT will remain as the only
Policy/Practice retrieval mechanism? If a new RR is eventually
described, does that obviate the need to anglicize the current format?
Or does that depend on when "eventually" is?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html