On Mar 27, 2009, at 4:37 AM, John Levine wrote: >>> well, now I'm completely confused. to my eyes, your example fits >>> exactly what 'registered' and 'resolvable' mean, but I guess you >>> have something else in mind. > > Steve is quite right. Since the DKIM key records are at different > names from the related MX or A record, the existence of one doesn't > require or imply the existence of the other. > > I don't want to hold up this errata/update/whatever any more than it > already is, so I'd suggest taking out any wording about the DNS status > of the SDID.
+1 > One of us should send in a separate technical erratum saying that DKIM > key records SHOULD be published only for SDID domains that have > corresponding MX or A records and can receive mail. Any reason for that? It doesn't strike me as an obviously good idea. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
