Steve, Could you expand on this somewhat?
We may be able to push the beastly wildcard issue into touch altogether here. What is the deployed base for MX . ? How widely is it recognized? Used? > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:51 PM > To: Untitled WG > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] TXT wildcards SSP issues > > (wildly off-topic content follows. Hit 'N' now.) > > On Jun 2, 2007, at 3:34 PM, John Levine wrote: > > >> But... if the only problem is wildcard records, and only a small > >> number of senders are going to want to use wildcards with SSP then > >> the obvious engineering solution is to have those small numbers of > >> senders upgrade their DNS infrastructure, rather than wait for the > >> far larger number of potential recipients to upgrade their > >> infrastructure. > > > > The problem is that you've just spec'ed SSP to use a > protocol that is > > not DNS. It's fairly similar to DNS, but it's not DNS. I can't > > imagine the IESG accepting that in a standards track document. > > No, it's perfectly compliant DNS. Really, it is. > > It's not bind, though, and there's a fairly common fallacy at > IESG, amongst other places, that DNS is "what bind does" > rather than vice-versa. So, yeah, you're right about the > standards document issue (were it me, I'd just spec TXT > records and not mention wildcards at all). > > I have a dns server that'll do internal wildcard records > today (as do you, IIRC). The information it uses to do that > will not transfer correctly over AXFR - but who, other than > some subset of bind users, uses AXFR to maintain their > secondaries, anyway? :) > > > The question of wildcards internal to names has been around > for years. > > Everyone except extreme DNS fundamentalists agrees that > they would be > > very useful, but they haven't converged on a workable > design and we're > > unlikely to do it here. > > I think I'm a DNS fundamentalist, and I think it's a fine idea. > > > > >> And, from what I'm hearing, those who are motivated to use > SSP at all > >> are mostly senders. > > > > Personally, the part of SSP that I would find useful is "I send no > > mail". I get mountains of blowback from spam sent with addresses > > subdomains of mine, starting with misscraped message IDs with host > > names on the right side, now mutated into various sorts of > dictionary > > attacks. I'd want to tell people that it's all bogus. > > How is "MX ." working out for you? Not a rhetorical question > - it's likely the closest we have to a standard for "I don't > send email" > today, and is more likely (IMO) to be used by recipients than > SSP, so it's an interesting bit of data. > > Cheers, > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
