Dave Crocker wrote: > I believe the desire with checking the A record is similar to > the idea behind having ADSP in the first space.
I don't understand this, the I-D does not talk about A records. > Checking for the presence of an A record is intended to try > tell you something in the absence of an explicit action by > the domain owner. That's it's flaw: It is intuiting ADSP > information from non-ADSP action. If that's about step 2 in chapter 4.2.2 of I-D.ietf-dkim-ssp-03, that verifies the existence of the author domain by any query, recommending MX for this purpose. If the author domain doesn't exist the result is "error". It is one of the four results in chapter 3.2 (no ADSP, all, discardable, nxdomain). > While there is nothing wrong with checking the A record, it's > semantics have literally nothing (directly) to do with ADSP. If the author domain does not exist it cannot receive mail, as there is no A, no AAAA, and no MX, among others. That check is not directly related to ADSP, it generally makes sense, maybe it should be done as first step. Is that the "new issue" here ? Related: Apparently the I-D does not mention domain literals. I think it should say something, domain literal isn't nxdomain. Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
