In message <[email protected]>, Viktor Dukhovni write s: > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:27:24PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > I don't think so? The "+" sign as magic "this is the same user as" > > > is also not a feature supported by all SMTP servers or specified in > > > a standard, correct? And people might want to use different keys for > > > paul+personal versus paul+ietf. > > > > And this is not a decision that needs to made by us. This is a decision > > that should be made by the publisher of the data. One could even have > > a rule which says "if *+* try as is and on nxdomain try /\(*\)+*/\1/" > > Sorry, CMU-style address extensions are a local matter entirely > outside the world of email standards. On some domains "+" is > special, on other domains "-", and others still some other convenient > character not used in real email addresses.
All of which is irrelevent provided you can encode that into a policy which can be transmitted. > It is not possible to handle these without substantially complicating > the logic. One would have to query the domain for the domain's > recipient delimiter first, and then for the address. So. One of the reasons to go with base32 and not raw binary is that the DNS does normalisation which is potentially different to the normalisation done by the SMTP server. At a minimum we should be able to specifying "no normalisation" vs "case fold" (and which direction) for ascii LHS. Yes, it makes things more complicated but the real world is complicated. Remember that one is comparing this to a SRV record which points to a key server that does all the normalisation required to return the correct key 100% of the time. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
