John,
I think we're rehashing an earlier debate, but...
I realize there are organizations with uncooperative DNS managers who
make it hard to install the key records needed. I wouldn't be
surprised if some of us even work at such organizations. But a local
optimization that ends up demanding extra work from the rest of the
world to work around one's DNS management is, to put it mildly, not a
great idea. If DKIM is going to be deployed, part of the deployment
will be to figure out how to get the required records installed.
This isn't quite a fair characterization. It's not *just* uncooperative
DNS managers, but software limitations, differing budget lines, actual
distinct operating entities where DNS is offered as a service, etc. I
would expect that this problem is likely to persist in nearly every S&P
500 company, a number of governments and educational institutions. So
when you call this a 'local optimiziation', maybe it is true in the
academic sense, but the scope of the locality is quite large.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html