On Dec 9, 2006, at 8:24 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
From a requirements perspective, I think providing policy for non-
existent domains is explicitly NOT a requirement. For a domain to
be covered by SSP, it MUST exist. I like Graham Murray's
definition of exists.
An Address RR could be for anything. Blocking "improperly" signed
messages would require discovery of a policy RR indicating
exclusivity (all "From" headers are assured to be signed). The
likely outcome of such an assertion is disabling use of mailing-
lists. The discovery process for this "rare" assertion must be done
for each "improperly" signed message using one these methods:
a) search for a prefixed policy RR up the label tree ignoring non-
existence.
b) check for an MX RR or Address RR and then assume coexistence of a
prefixed policy RR.
c) define a new RR type for policy and publish wildcards at each
label blocking synthesis.
d) define a new RR type for a pointer of common locations for policy
records and publish wildcards at each label blocking synthesis.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
