On Monday 28 January 2008 11:41, Siegel, Ellen wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman > > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:32 AM > > To: ietf-dkim@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. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
