ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

2008-01-28 09:50:03


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:32 AM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

On Monday 28 January 2008 10:18, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
I'd like to voice my support for Bill's position, notwithstanding
#1360
from a year ago.

The reality is that many smaller domain owners rely on their ISP or
some
other service provider to deal with the "under-the-hood" stuff. The
cname suggestion is interesting but I  haven't had time to think it
through.


I've done this with some customers.  As long as:

1.  Their DNS provider supports it.

2.  They don't mess it up.

Those caveats are pretty significant for a lot of smaller domain owners.
It's not generally the case that DNS providers provide easy-to-use tools
for creating arbitrary authentication-related records. And unless the
tools are *really* good, they won't do much to solve the "they don't
mess it up" part even if they do exist. 

Ellen 


it works fine.

From my limited experience, most DNS providers support TXT now, but
the
underscore is often problematic.  I've had more than one problem with
"Not
a
valid hostname" errors.  Of course that's correct, but misses the
point
that
not all domain names are host names.  I expect that in time this will
change.

The biggest problem is getting non-technical domain owners to
correctly
publish the CNAME.

Scott K

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html