[ietf-dkim] New issue: Upward query vs. wildcard publication

[Douglas Otis]

On Apr 18, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> Mark Delany wrote:
>> John L wrote:
>>> You are certainly correct that most zones are pretty flat, but  
>>> this sounds like a DOS attack waiting to happen, send out junk  
>>> with long bogus addresses
>>
>> I'm just raising this as a discussion point; what if we said that  
>> the SSP record must (at least) exist at the registry cut-point?  
>> It's not particularly pretty, but you (only) need about a 1,000  
>> entry database to define all the registry cut-points today. I know  
>> the size because we've built this sort of database for other  
>> reasons. I think SpamAssassin has something similar as well.
>
> FWIW, here's what we use for cut points:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/lib/Mail/ 
> SpamAssassin/Util/RegistrarBoundaries.pm?view=co
>
> surbl.org and uribl.com use the same cut points since they're  
> mostly used by SA.

This provides a good starting point.  Should this document remain in  
its current form, or perhaps published using a different template?

Would IANA be interested in acting a repository for such highly  
useful information?

Perhaps it could be called "List of Registering Domains (LRD)."  The  
terms TLD SLD, etc could then reference LDR instead.

-Doug