[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Version identifier

To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Version identifier
From: Tony Finch <dot@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 23:24:17 +0100
Cc: IETF MASS WG <ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-mailsig.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mailsig-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <>
Sender: owner-ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>
> we do as a practical matter require a clear mechanism for distinguishing
> between DKIM records and SPF records.  We also need to anticipate
> possible future SPF like protocols.

The _domainkey and _policy labels should be sufficient (though _policy is
possibly too generic for good future-proofing). This is because _ can't
appear in mail domains which is where SPF records appear.

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <dot@xxxxxxxx>  http://dotat.at/
BISCAY: WEST 5 OR 6 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. SHOWERS AT FIRST. MODERATE OR
GOOD.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Version identifier
  - From: John Levine

References:
- Version identifier
  - From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip

Prev by Date: replay attacks, was Re: revised Proposed Charter
Next by Date: Re: ] Replay attacks and ISP business models
Previous by thread: Version identifier
Next by thread: Re: Version identifier
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread