Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > _prefix.exists.example.com TXT "Policy1" > *.example.com CNAME _wildcard.example.com > _prefix._wildcard.example.com TXT "Policy2"
[...] > This algorithm is 100% compatible with the deployed, legacy > DNS and meets all use cases that were proposed for > wildcarding. If it works (I'm unfortuately a DNS ignorant, although the SPF adventure helped to get some basic ideas) it's cute. Did I get this right, the real trick is a convention to look for and interpret an _wildcard.example.com alias if there's no direct hit ? That should be an I-D of its own. As you said the SPF-solution to support both SPF and TXT in parallel for years is not very convincing (but still better than abusing TXT forever). > If this mechanism was adopted as policy for ALL prefixed > records there would no longer be any need to define new RRs > unless there was a need to define a new record syntax. Better stick to TXT with this convention. Snipping the rest because it's beyond me. You probably need a IANA registry of _prefix-es following your _wildcard convention. Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
