Michael Thomas wrote:
1. Initial DKIM deployment relies upon support of DNS TXT records. We
either accept that or we start over. Hence, any discussion of non-support
of TXT records strikes me as counter-productive.
2. How does support for TXT records affect the current discussion about
Author-vs-Operator domain name, used for signing and assessment?
Dave. I'm merely pointing out that lack of support by some DNS providers for
NS records is not a good argument since many/most do not support using TXT
records either.
Right. I was trying to jump up a level and find out how this issue -- which you
did not introduce -- is relevant to the current topic.
In other words, I suggested that use of classic DNS sub-domains provides the
delegation features that cover the interesting cases for DKIM.
I continue to be unclear what is superior about having SSP invent a new
mechanism that creates security problems and additional administrative overhead.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html