From: Jim Fenton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's a different situation for key records and
policy/practice/(petunia?) records. The choice of whether to
use a new RR or a TXT key record should be retrieved is
something that can be represented in the signature (the query
type, q=, tag
Delany
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:40 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP and o= values]
3. verifiers that see q=newRR SHOULD query for that RR but MAY
query for the TXT.
Single query, no matter what the situation. No failures,
so
On Mar 30, 2006, at 1:47 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
1. signers MUST have a TXT and SHOULD have a new RR.
2. signers using RR indicate this with q=newRR.
3. verifiers that see q=newRR SHOULD query for that RR but
MAY query for
Mark Delany wrote:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 10:09:24AM -0800, Jim Fenton allegedly wrote:
There's a different situation for key records and
policy/practice/(petunia?) records. The choice of whether to use a new
RR or a TXT key record should be retrieved is something that can be
So it sounds like their database *will* support the additional RR
values, it's just that they don't make it easy to use them.
Until they get their standard interface fixed, it sounds like Microsoft
(or a 3rd party) could provide an alternative interface that
additionally stored the RRs in a
Jim Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One concern is that this doesn't scale. I have heard one large
financial institution say that they have over 100 external senders of email.
Which in the current climate of phishing is probably not a very
advisable for a financial institution to do.
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Hector Santos wrote:
- There is only a small deployment of SSP records at this point
- There are good reasons for going to a new RR
- Unlike key records, there's no way to advertise whether to do a TXT or
new RR query for SSP
it seems like there are good reasons to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF DKIM WG
ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP and o= values]
So it sounds like their database *will* support the additional RR
values, it's just
From: Tony Hansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
So it sounds like their database *will* support the
additional RR values, it's just that they don't make it easy
to use them.
Not to a level that is remotely meaningful. If you cannot save the
information out of the database or query it using
From: Hector Santos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Follow the MARID May/2004 Wild Card MXes Thread at:
http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf-mxcomp/2004-05/msg00504.html
http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf-mxcomp/2004-05/msg00461.html
Bob Atkinson seems to explain in detail.
Olafur
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Tony Hansen wrote:
So it sounds like their database *will* support the additional RR
values, it's just that they don't make it easy to use them.
Until they get their standard interface fixed, it sounds like Microsoft
(or a 3rd party) could provide an alternative interface
I make no assumption on the question of TXT versus other DNS RR's at
all. I view this topic to be totally orthogonal to the DNS question and
unrelated. I see having o=~ as difficult to remember, describe and use,
irrespective of what the DNS record looks like otherwise.
Tony Hansen
On Mar 27, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
I make no assumption on the question of TXT versus other DNS RR's
at all. I view this topic to be totally orthogonal to the DNS
question and unrelated. I see having o=~ as difficult to remember,
describe and use, irrespective of what the DNS
While on the topic of o=, how about allowing a list of approved third party signers to be included, rather than just declaring that either no third party signing is allowed or everyone and their mother can sign on your behalf?
This seems like an obvious improvement that could be
At 5:03 PM -0800 3/27/06, Douglas Otis wrote:
An ability to recognize an email-address will become increasingly
difficult once the EAI WG concludes.
Nope. It will still be [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are more possible text
characters on both sides of the @, but it will not be much harder
than
Mark Delany wrote:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 10:45:31PM -0500, Tony Hansen allegedly wrote:
As promised at the dkim meeting, I'm resending a suggestion about o=
that was sent in November and again in February.
At the Wednesday meeting, it was suggested that we replace the single
character
Mike Wolf wrote:
While on the topic of o=, how about allowing a list of approved
third party signers to be included, rather than just declaring that
either no third party signing is allowed or everyone and their mother
can sign on your behalf?
This seems like an obvious improvement that could
Did you just pass the whitelisting chore to the name servers?
thanks,
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Douglas Otis
Sent: Mon 3/27/2006 8:03 PM
To: Tony Hansen
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP and o= values
On Mar 27, 2006, at 3:16 PM
- Original Message -
From: Jim Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
- There is only a small deployment of SSP records at this point
- There are good reasons for going to a new RR
- Unlike key records, there's no way to advertise whether to do a TXT or
new RR query for
On Mar 27, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
Mike Wolf wrote:
While on the topic of o=, how about allowing a list of approved
third party signers to be included, rather than just declaring
that either no third party signing is allowed or everyone and
their mother can sign on your
On Mar 27, 2006, at 5:24 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 5:03 PM -0800 3/27/06, Douglas Otis wrote:
An ability to recognize an email-address will become increasingly
difficult once the EAI WG concludes.
Nope. It will still be [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are more possible text
characters on both
I have to agree 100% here Philip.
My recollection of the issue was related to Active Directory (AD)visions
versus the non-Active Directory versions. For example, we don't use AD, so
this might be an issue for us. I believe there were some example shown
where Windows DNS IP Helper API
As promised at the dkim meeting, I'm resending a suggestion about o=
that was sent in November and again in February.
At the Wednesday meeting, it was suggested that we replace the single
character o=? (etc.) tags with tags like o=WEAK (etc.). The thrust of
the messages was that we should use
23 matches
Mail list logo
