Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 18:22, Jim Fenton wrote:
(2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion,
mostly saying "if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else."
Again, no clear consensus.
Agreed. There is also a view that if you go with a new RR type, don't bother
with SSP. By the time a new RR type is widely deployable, the market will
have found a different solution.
I have a lot of sympathy for this point of view, but something
also to consider here is that there is a relatively small, but
motivated set up of people who would like to use SSP as early
adopters. These are people who are being attacked by phishers
and would find it relatively easy to make a broad statement like
"by all means, trash mail from me that isn't signed". For those
folks, it just needs to be possible at all. For bind, this is a
straightforward, if somewhat aesthetically unappealing, process.
Other resolvers may vary (obviously).
From my point of view, the question is does a new RR actually
bring something advantageous to the table. And is that advantage
enough to overcome the energy barrier of the deployment difficulties.
As I recall, the current SSP draft tries to make a case for that,
but I honestly don't understand the logic behind it. Maybe Jim
and Eric can elaborate.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html