On Wed, 30 May 2007 15:52:17 -0700 Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Wednesday 30 May 2007 18:22, Jim Fenton wrote: >> >>> (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, >>> mostly saying "if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else." >>> Again, no clear consensus. >> >> Agreed. There is also a view that if you go with a new RR type, don't bother >> with SSP. By the time a new RR type is widely deployable, the market will >> have found a different solution. > >I have a lot of sympathy for this point of view, but something >also to consider here is that there is a relatively small, but >motivated set up of people who would like to use SSP as early >adopters. These are people who are being attacked by phishers >and would find it relatively easy to make a broad statement like >"by all means, trash mail from me that isn't signed". For those >folks, it just needs to be possible at all. For bind, this is a >straightforward, if somewhat aesthetically unappealing, process. >Other resolvers may vary (obviously). > Receivers need to be able to query it too for it to be useful. Doable in BIND is intersting, but not nearly sufficient.
Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
