Eliot Lear wrote:
See<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-dns-choices#section-3.1>
for an "authoritative" (from my POV) statement about these issues.
Ok, I understand what you're saying. Then actually I agree with
this logic, and this WAS where I was pondering whether we should
move to a new RR type, but I don't know if it is sufficient
justification.
Apparently the WG didn't like new RR type, and it also didn't like
"sharing SPF" (dubbed as "subtyping" by the IAB). For the reasons
stated in the IAB draft "subtyping" TXT is officially a non-starter.
I think we're free to specify an ADSP format with an initial string
allowing "subtyping" for the wildcard case, e.g., we could say that
ADSP reords MUST start with the five characters "dkim=", instead of
saying that they contain a "dkim" [FWS] "=" not necessarily at the
begin.
it's not clear to me that wildcards truly buy anything in this
case. Am I missing something?
I've no idea how popular MX / A / AAAA wildcards still are today,
wrt mail (i.e. spam) they can be a PITA. So bad that the ISP of
[see my From address] decided to disable the mailbox after getting
too much spam for it - and maybe they even know that this resulted
in [see my Reply-To address] showing up in Internet drafts instead
of my old address in their domain.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html