On Wed, 30 May 2007 15:52:17 -0700 Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
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).
Receivers need to be able to query it too for it to be useful. Doable in
BIND is intersting, but not nearly sufficient.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html