[ietf-dkim] SSP issues
ietf-dkim at kitterman.com
Sat Jun 2 10:08:55 PDT 2007
On Saturday 02 June 2007 12:54, Douglas Otis wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Saturday 02 June 2007 12:27, Steve Atkins wrote:
> > > So if the spec states "SSP clients must query for new RR first, then
> > > TXT" you wouldn't expect most receivers to comply with that?
> > Eventually, if the new RR type gets some deployment.
> Won't the ultimate impact be an increase in damage created by spam? Why
> double the amount of searches induced by this junk? Why not depend upon
> the existence of a specific MX records for those that care about either
> their policy or MX record being found? Those in trouble need to stop
> using a wildcard MX. Is that too painful?
It's not painful for me at all. Others on the list have stipulated a
requirement for it. The TXT now and new RR type with wildcard support when
ready approach let's deployers trade the complexity of DNS changes against
dropping the wildcard. We can let the market decide which is less painful.
It's a single DNS query, so DNS query + or - 1 doesn't seem like a major
More information about the ietf-dkim