On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:37:10AM -0000, John Levine wrote: >>> well, now I'm completely confused. to my eyes, your example fits >>> exactly what 'registered' and 'resolvable' mean, but I guess you >>> have something else in mind. > >Steve is quite right. Since the DKIM key records are at different >names from the related MX or A record, the existence of one doesn't >require or imply the existence of the other. > >I don't want to hold up this errata/update/whatever any more than it >already is, so I'd suggest taking out any wording about the DNS status >of the SDID. > >One of us should send in a separate technical erratum saying that DKIM >key records SHOULD be published only for SDID domains that have >corresponding MX or A records and can receive mail.
-1 please don't, or at least, please explain. The following shouldn't be discouraged: From: f...@bar.com DKIM-Signature: ... d=43343.rep.bar.com ... where 43343.rep.bar.com doesn't have any MX or A record. -- Jeff Macdonald jmacdon...@e-dialog.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
