(wildly off-topic content follows. Hit 'N' now.)
On Jun 2, 2007, at 3:34 PM, John Levine wrote:
But... if the only problem is wildcard records, and only a small
number of senders are going to want to use wildcards with SSP then
the obvious engineering solution is to have those small numbers of
senders upgrade their DNS infrastructure, rather than wait for the
far larger number of potential recipients to upgrade their
infrastructure.
The problem is that you've just spec'ed SSP to use a protocol that
is not DNS. It's fairly similar to DNS, but it's not DNS. I can't
imagine the IESG accepting that in a standards track document.
No, it's perfectly compliant DNS. Really, it is.
It's not bind, though, and there's a fairly common fallacy at IESG,
amongst other places, that DNS is "what bind does" rather than
vice-versa. So, yeah, you're right about the standards document
issue (were it me, I'd just spec TXT records and not mention
wildcards at all).
I have a dns server that'll do internal wildcard records today (as
do you, IIRC). The information it uses to do that will not transfer
correctly over AXFR - but who, other than some subset of bind
users, uses AXFR to maintain their secondaries, anyway? :)
The question of wildcards internal to names has been around for years.
Everyone except extreme DNS fundamentalists agrees that they would be
very useful, but they haven't converged on a workable design and we're
unlikely to do it here.
I think I'm a DNS fundamentalist, and I think it's a fine idea.
And, from what I'm hearing, those who are motivated to use SSP at all
are mostly senders.
Personally, the part of SSP that I would find useful is "I send no
mail". I get mountains of blowback from spam sent with addresses
subdomains of mine, starting with misscraped message IDs with host
names on the right side, now mutated into various sorts of dictionary
attacks. I'd want to tell people that it's all bogus.
How is "MX ." working out for you? Not a rhetorical question - it's
likely the closest we have to a standard for "I don't send email"
today, and is more likely (IMO) to be used by recipients than
SSP, so it's an interesting bit of data.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html