Eliot Lear wrote: >> See<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-dns-choices#section-3.1> >> for an "authoritative" (from my POV) statement about these issues. > Ok, I understand what you're saying. Then actually I agree with > this logic, and this WAS where I was pondering whether we should > move to a new RR type, but I don't know if it is sufficient > justification.
Apparently the WG didn't like new RR type, and it also didn't like "sharing SPF" (dubbed as "subtyping" by the IAB). For the reasons stated in the IAB draft "subtyping" TXT is officially a non-starter. I think we're free to specify an ADSP format with an initial string allowing "subtyping" for the wildcard case, e.g., we could say that ADSP reords MUST start with the five characters "dkim=", instead of saying that they contain a "dkim" [FWS] "=" not necessarily at the begin. > it's not clear to me that wildcards truly buy anything in this > case. Am I missing something? I've no idea how popular MX / A / AAAA wildcards still are today, wrt mail (i.e. spam) they can be a PITA. So bad that the ISP of [see my From address] decided to disable the mailbox after getting too much spam for it - and maybe they even know that this resulted in [see my Reply-To address] showing up in Internet drafts instead of my old address in their domain. Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
