On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 domainkeys-feedbackbase02(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com wrote:
You would not mind if I keep this saved and send it to namedroppers
at appropriate moment, do you?
What a truly bizarre notion. Are you suggesting that:
I should have added ":)" though seeing as you react I should probably
do as I promised.
a) no one from namedroppers could possible be subscribed to this list yet?
I don't know for certain, but probably not any core people there.
b) no one from namedroppers is capable of subscribing to this list?
c) no one from namedroppers understands the reality of the situation and my
post will clarify it for them?
Your attitude towards dns use will be more clear. DNS is really really not
all-purpose database.
d) I should cower in the corner because the namedropper police are going to
come visit with baseball bats if they learn of the heretical talk going on
here?
For a moment I though we were talking about the internet. You know,
that public network where anyone can send any set of bits on any port to
any participant, without the encumbrance of seeking approval. Are you
talking about a different internet?
You can send any bits, but for bits to be understood by various software
there need to be a protocol and standards.
Or, are you suggesting that certain forms of bits sent on certain ports
(lets call them TXT records on port 53) need approval from some higher
set of beings whereas other forms of bits sent on other ports (lets call
them HTML on port 80) need no such approval? What sort of bizarre
internet is that?
If you don't want DKIM to be part of IETF standard, just say so and we'd
not be talking about reuse of txt, otherwise expect cross-area review and
that your "perfect solution" may not be perfect from perspective of people
working on other protocols.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net