> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 7:19 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dkim-ops] DKIM - ATPS > > I've seen it, with SPF records. A client may support TCP, but if the > firewall is set to not allow TCP packets for DNS, then you will have > the same issue. > > So this issue exists. I'm getting support questions related to this > about once a quarter, up from once a year.
That's my observation as well, which is why I prefer to avoid designing such that it might hit truncation limits. And a per-party record in DNS means you have all of that space to express policy specifically about that one signer without running into truncation, whenever we figure out what that should look like (which is why for now I don't say anything about what should go in the record). _______________________________________________ dkim-ops mailing list [email protected] http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops
