-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Scott Kitterman wrote:
There was recently a long thread on the DKIM mailing list about DKIM use
of TXT versus a dedicated RR type. It started here:
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2005q4/001355.html
and allong the way, Frank made an interesting suggestion:
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2005q4/001417.html
How about DKIM using Type 99 instead of waiting for it's own record type
to get established by the IANA? As I understand it there is no risk of
collision due to where DKIM puts it's records.
DKIM should not be using the SPF RR type if the RR type is called "SPF".
If the type was renamed to "MPOL" (mail policy) or something, I could
imagine it to be used for various e-mail policy protocols. As Wayne and
William noted, a unique RR prefix such as "v=ssp1" would be required.
However, I *strongly* feel that the namespace scheme ("_spf.<domain>" vs.
"_policy._domainkey.<domain>" vs. just "<domain>") schould be standardized
across all protocols that make use of such a common RR type.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDe7Q6wL7PKlBZWjsRAta9AKCH0hEO9985tN/1CzO9qd7iV/5CcgCfRjl0
fqwXsVJtM533O/86E7v8GZM=
=c3v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com