[ietf-dkim] Re: Jim's issues - one more try
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Mon Jun 18 11:38:28 PDT 2007
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> please respond, by Monday, to this with +1/-1's
You were probably not talking about this Monday, but...
> Issue#1: +1 - include use of XPTR as part of ssp-00
> Issue#1: -1 - exclude use of XPTR from ssp-00
...I still like Phil's general solution (+1).
> Issue#2: +1 - Define how to use a TXT RR for SSP policies
> (with or without something else)
> Issue#2: -1 - Don't use TXT at all, only use new RRs for SSP
IFF #1 AND #3 end up with -1 I'd favour a new RR (-1) for #2.
> Issue#3: +1 - Define an upward query based approach to finding
> SSP statements
> Issue#3: -1 - Define a wildcard based approach to finding SSP
Don't care, both ways are far from optimal. Folks run into the
known limitations with TXT wildcards if they try to use this for
SSP _and_ SPF _and_ whatever comes next.
More information about the ietf-dkim