Hector Santos wrote: > Jim Fenton wrote: >> Hector Santos wrote: > >>> What are the problems with this type of logic? >> >> Again, the difficulty, if you receive a message from sales.idsg.net, is >> knowing where to query. Is it sales._ssp.idsg.net, or >> _ssp.sales.idsg.net? More complex domain names will result in more >> possibilities. > > I see. > > But why not define it so its always two levels, isdg.net? and let the > zone define the rest? But it's not always two levels: I gave one example for that in .k12.ca.us, but there's also .co.uk, .edu.au, and too many other examples to enumerate. Doug Otis has proposed that a registry of such names be maintained, which I doubt would be workable, and in any case wouldn't cover sub-delegation. And we have already discussed the problems with associating semantics with zone cuts; there are administratively separate domains in common zones, and subdomains under common administration in separate zones. > > Maybe a solution would be to use the main domain to obtain a record > that "instructs" the client to what is the the "main domain?" > > Also, if DNS can't handle the representation of complex unions, then > why not just go to a TXT result syntax that provides a masking concept > and let the client perform this task all in single line? Ala SPF-like > directives?
I'm not sure what you mean here. Discovery of the TXT record and retrieval from the right place would still be a problem. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
