On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 02:23:24PM +0000, Mark Delany wrote: > The original text could probably benefit from using more accurate DNS > terminology.
sorry, I was picking on the missing "." in "foo.bar._domainkey.tcd.ie" just to make sure I myself didn't get it wrong. > in the Selector syntax is always interpreted as a dns label separator > as the syntax does not allow for that distinction between the two > interpretations. To do that, we would have to invent something like > "foo.bar"._domainkey syntax to mean that "foo.bar" is a single dns > label or maybe foo\.bar._domainkey. Well, I don't think there's a new invention necessary, just a clarification whether or not the selector makes up a single label. To me it looks cleaner from the protocol POV to go for a single label, while there are operational counterarguments. > That seems ugly and unnecessary - especially since DKIM already > imposed constraints on the contents of labels, this seems like another > acceptable constraint. A word of clarification might be helpful here. -Peter _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
