[ietf-dkim] TXT wildcards SSP issues
ietf-dkim at kitterman.com
Sun Jun 3 07:01:14 PDT 2007
On Saturday 02 June 2007 18:51, Steve Atkins wrote:
> How is "MX ." working out for you? Not a rhetorical question - it's
> likely the closest we have to a standard for "I don't send email"
> today, and is more likely (IMO) to be used by recipients than
> SSP, so it's an interesting bit of data.
IMO it's a really odd idea as it causes DNS root queries by standards
compliant MTAs and changes the semantics of MX (now all of a sudden MX
relates to sending mail).
I've suggested before that if one wants a standardized "Sends no mail", an
extract of the string literal for that from the SPF RFC (RFC 4408) could be
pulled out and made a separate spec for that one meaning avoiding all the
other baggage. It's currently standardized and has significant deployment.
It isn't clear to me that either of these proposals though is meant to apply
to message bodies. I know SPF is aimed at the envelope, I that's what I
would have thought for MX . too.
More information about the ietf-dkim