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

Re: Version identifier

To: John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Version identifier
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 18:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxx, dot@xxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1123119445; h=Received: Cc:To:Message-id:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:MIME-version: Content-type:References; b=IzjgGPLXzUpCR1ZrenPHBFZNy9QFB8ORsHHoJ2+Q 9vpwwOS25osR/wnjg8+kADP0k8nwO0O4Q9iG2/GAYRDnbQ==
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 03 Aug 2005 23:15:13 +0000" <>
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


> >possibly too generic for good future-proofing). This is because _ can't
> >appear in mail domains which is where SPF records appear.

> Except when people publish SPF wildcards, which they do.

Exactly. The reason people are caling for version information in DKIM records
is not because of wildcard use in DKIM records, but because of slopover from
wildcard use in other TXT records, especially SPF.

				Ned

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Version identifier
  - From: Andrew Newton

References:
- Re: Version identifier
  - From: Tony Finch
- Re: Version identifier
  - From: John Levine

Prev by Date: RE: QUERY: Key Server Choices
Next by Date: Re: wildcards, was Re: dkim technology?
Previous by thread: Re: Version identifier
Next by thread: Re: Version identifier
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread