ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] domain existence check

2008-05-22 11:25:38
I remain convinced that it is absolutely essential to retain the 
existence check.  Making it advisory would be a serious mistake.

eric

--On May 22, 2008 4:03:28 PM +0000 John Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

We don't seem to have resolved the question of whether the ADSP
should define a specific existence check, or just say that you
should check but leave the definition for other places.

Personally, I think it's severe mission creep to try to define an
existence check.  It's straightforward to check for a NXDOMAIN or
NODATA result, but I see no reason to think that such a check has
the semantics an ADSP user would want.

To touch on some of the issues (and try not to rehash them all), the
majority of A and AAAA records don't name domains used in mail and
you can't check short of sending a test message and waiting a week
to see if it bounces, there's many ways a name can exist but again
not for mail (what if there's just a TXT record), and any check we
defined would just be wrong if, e.g., next year we make MX . the
no-mail standard.

So I like Arvel and Wietse's approach, say to do it but don't try to
define it since any definition would be wrong.  Other thoughts?

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html