On Saturday 02 June 2007 12:54, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Saturday 02 June 2007 12:27, Steve Atkins wrote:
So if the spec states "SSP clients must query for new RR first, then
TXT" you wouldn't expect most receivers to comply with that?
Eventually, if the new RR type gets some deployment.
Scott,
Won't the ultimate impact be an increase in damage created by spam? Why
double the amount of searches induced by this junk? Why not depend upon
the existence of a specific MX records for those that care about either
their policy or MX record being found? Those in trouble need to stop
using a wildcard MX. Is that too painful?
It's not painful for me at all. Others on the list have stipulated a
requirement for it. The TXT now and new RR type with wildcard support when
ready approach let's deployers trade the complexity of DNS changes against
dropping the wildcard. We can let the market decide which is less painful.
It's a single DNS query, so DNS query + or - 1 doesn't seem like a major
problem.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html