>An alternative is to go back to the original base32 encoding, which >is lossless, and thus can allow the remote DNS server (a special-purpose >DNS lookup engine serving a zone with per-user information) to >decode the local-part and perform whatever fuzzy matching may be >appropriate. > >The lossless encoding can support longer names by breaking them up >into multiple labels. > >This allows static DNS to be published where desired, and custom >code to produce dynamic results when appropriate.
I wrote up a draft summarizing the ways one might do mailbox name lookups in the DNS with something close to the local-part rules that MTAs have: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dns-mailbox/ There's two reversible encodings, including a worked out version of base32 that handles full 64 character local-parts, preserves the lexical order of local-parts, and makes signed dynamic zones at least somewhat possible, an implementation of regular expression matching that I think is cool, but probably doesn't scale adequately for large mail systems, and a straightforward way to securely identify a web lookup service. As far as I can tell, the base32 approach handles everything that hashing does, is no harder to use if you want to publish a static set of names, but still offers the possibility for large mail systems to serve stuff on the fly. Take a look. I can send you a tiny python script that turns local-parts into the base32 names if you want. R's, John _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
