Doug, > I know many don't like being so 1970ish, but to conserve DNS payload > space, here is one example. Introducing this change when going to the > binary key seems like a good choice.
While in principle I agree with you - in fact I was looking at ways to compress other components of the record, I think we have to be careful not to go too far down the line - the real boundary is 512 bytes. That gets us easily to key sizes of 2048 and probably 3072 if desired. 4096 is just not an option without either going to TCP or EDNS0, no matter the key size. My point is I think this might be a bit of over-optimizing. I would be more interested in making the record easier to parse, but even here I'm not too concerned. Eliot _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
