On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 10:11:35AM +0200, Peter Koch allegedly wrote: > On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 07:55:28AM +0000, Mark Delany wrote: > > > Which maybe brings up a documentation clarification about allowing > > CNAMEs since at least one person assumed that they are not allowed. > > from the DNS point of view you don't need to say anything. Usual DNS > resolution rules apply. If you start discussing CNAME, what about DNAME?
Quite so. I note that, eg, RFC2821 spends some time discussing CNAMEs, but on the resolving side merely to say "resolve as usual". > The problem might be one of wording, since 3.6.2.1 says that the keys are > ``"stored" in a subdomain named ""_domainkey""'', where that's actually > the (sub)domain used to query for them. An example using CNAME might be > helpful as well. Yep. In light of the possible confusion I also wonder whether a multi-label Selector should also be discussed or inferred by example. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
