Hector Santos wrote:
Jim Fenton wrote:
Hector Santos wrote:
What are the problems with this type of logic?
Again, the difficulty, if you receive a message from sales.idsg.net, is
knowing where to query. Is it sales._ssp.idsg.net, or
_ssp.sales.idsg.net? More complex domain names will result in more
possibilities.
I see.
But why not define it so its always two levels, isdg.net? and let the
zone define the rest?
But it's not always two levels: I gave one example for that in
.k12.ca.us, but there's also .co.uk, .edu.au, and too many other
examples to enumerate. Doug Otis has proposed that a registry of such
names be maintained, which I doubt would be workable, and in any case
wouldn't cover sub-delegation. And we have already discussed the
problems with associating semantics with zone cuts; there are
administratively separate domains in common zones, and subdomains under
common administration in separate zones.
Maybe a solution would be to use the main domain to obtain a record
that "instructs" the client to what is the the "main domain?"
Also, if DNS can't handle the representation of complex unions, then
why not just go to a TXT result syntax that provides a masking concept
and let the client perform this task all in single line? Ala SPF-like
directives?
I'm not sure what you mean here. Discovery of the TXT record and
retrieval from the right place would still be a problem.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html