Folks,
While John has asked a reasonable question, I fear it is not the one that might
need answering for the DKIM effort. (I believe that John is not the only one
tending to ask larger questions than the DKIM group needs to answer...)
In particular, note the Subject line of this thread. Yet the current DKIM work
is about rfc2822.From addresses, not rfc2821 fields.
The issue that is beyond the scope of John's question, but probably goes to the
heart of what the DKIM group is doing, is what the limits are of the
specification it is currently working on -- now called Author Domain Signing
Practices, ADSP. This initially began as a means of publishing a record that
says whether an owner of a domain name signs mail under that domain name.
The effort now attempts to have a single published record cover multiple names
under a given domain, as well as checking for the very existence of that domain
(or any under it.)
Some of us believe this to be rather far afield of the working group's scope, as
well as far afield of what is technically practical.
But, of course, ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org isn't the place to pursue this.
But ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org is. Please do feel invited to join the
discussion there.
d/
John Levine wrote:
Hi. I have a new niggly question.
Over in DKIM land there is a battle going on with respect to the
treatment of domains that don't exist, with "don't exist" meaning
something like an authoritative DNS server doesn't return an MX or A
or AAAA or CNAME for the name.
Looking through the current draft, it looks to me like everyone
assumes that domain names have to exist, with the explicit exception
of the HELO/EHLO name, but it never says so in so many words.
Is this a deliberate omission, or is it so obvious that it wasn't
worth stating explicitly?
R's,
John
PS: The domains in the DKIM discussion are 2822 domains, but the
2822upd draft punts the interpretation of domain names over here.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net