On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 02:07:33AM -0000, John Levine allegedly wrote:
Consolidation of multiple domains to a single key record. Useful when
contracting out signing, wouldn't you think?
Maybe. Adding a CNAME is no easier than adding a TXT record. A
difference is that if you have many CNAMEs pointing to one place for
the TXT, you can change what's at the place once and it changes
everywhere else.
Strongly agreed - an ISP that supports millions of hosting domains, for
instance, will see a administrative barrier to using DKIM without
CNAME's, at least to get started.
Again, seems to me that to get started adding a TXT and adding a CNAME
are the same amount of effort.
I suspect that this is subjective and very much depends on how an ISP
might choose to deploy and what sort of database they use to generate
their zones. In any event, this seems like an argument against CNAME
support yet you then go on to say CNAMEs should be treated as
normal. I guess I'm confused as to the point?
In any event, maybe it's all a nit as the very question about
supporting CNAMEs really seems to be a non-issue. Unless there is
compelling reasons, let's just continue with the obvious and use the
DNS as everyone else does and use standard DNS resolving algorithms
and libraries as everyone else does. End of story.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html