[ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP

[Michael Thomas]

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Monday 28 January 2008 11:41, Siegel, Ellen wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
>>> bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
>>> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:32 AM
>>> To: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
>>> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP
>>>
>>> On Monday 28 January 2008 10:18, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>>>> I'd like to voice my support for Bill's position, notwithstanding
>> #1360
>>
>>>> from a year ago.
>>>>
>>>> The reality is that many smaller domain owners rely on their ISP or
>> some
>>
>>>> other service provider to deal with the "under-the-hood" stuff. The
>>>> cname suggestion is interesting but I  haven't had time to think it
>>>> through.
>>> I've done this with some customers.  As long as:
>>>
>>> 1.  Their DNS provider supports it.
>>>
>>> 2.  They don't mess it up.
>> Those caveats are pretty significant for a lot of smaller domain owners.
>> It's not generally the case that DNS providers provide easy-to-use tools
>> for creating arbitrary authentication-related records. And unless the
>> tools are *really* good, they won't do much to solve the "they don't
>> mess it up" part even if they do exist.
>>
> 
> Absolutely.  I've had to send them copy and paste this into your provider's 
> U/I type instructions.
> 
> Now last I checked Network Solutions didn't even provide TXT, so there's a 
> large fraction of the internet that can't do any of this without changing 
> providers.

Do they support CNAME? For a small domain, a simple CNAME of their
selector to point to their ESP's selector would be sufficient. I
think I was looking at some help info for google's blogs and they
provide UI explanations on how to point a CNAME at the right thing
for a lot of different DNS providers. This isn't any more rocket
science as creating a MX record, IMO.

		Mike