Wietse Venema wrote: > Wietse Venema wrote: > >> Frank Ellermann: >> >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Would it be better if "error" were a specifically defined >>>> result in addition to "unknown" / "all" / "discardable"? >>>> >>> The fourth bullet in chapter 3.2 "ASP results" offers "the >>> domain does not exist" after "unknown"/"all"/"discardable". >>> >>> I-D.kucherawy-sender-auth-header chapter 2.4.2 "ASP results" >>> lists this as "nxdomain". IMHO good enough, or do you have >>> something else in mind ? Let's s/ASP/ADSP/g + WGLC, s.v.p. >>> >> Sounds reasonable. I expect many will implement NXDOMAIN as a >> fourth ADSP lookup result in some way or another. >> >> This explains more easily than my earlier claim (an NXDOMAIN result >> cannot correspond with one of "unknown" / "all" / "discardable"). >> > > Dave Crocker: > >> Sorry for being confused, but I now can't tell whether the focus >> is on an NXDomain for the _adsp.<domain> string that is queried >> for ADSP, or the <domain> name to which it is associated. >> > > I am talking about DNS lookup #2 in ADSP: the author domain. > > _adsp.domainkey.example.com IN TXT (NXDOMAIN -> "unknown"). > example.com A IN (NXDOMAIN -> "nxdomain"). > > By including "nxdomain" as a verifier result we can eliminate > a confusion and frustration. >
That's the fourth result in section 3.2 of ssp-03, "The domain does not exist". So we already have it. Perhaps it's not clear enough that the "appropriate error" referred to in step 2 of section 4.2.2 is that particular result. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
