Re: RR prefix is not useful

["John R Levine" <johnl@xxxxxxxx>]

> > The bloat problem occurs when you use
> > wildcards.  Since no DNS server I know supports wildcards of the form
> > _marid.*.phoo.com, you have to put all of your wildcards at *.phoo.com
> > and that's where you get overlap and bloat.
>
> This means that domainkeys records are going to get caught by these
> wildcards as well.  Wildcards just aren't going to work when we're
> publishing TXT records, period.

At this point it appears that the most likely format for DK records is
some version of SPF records, so the band-aid works for them, too.

> > If specific nodes do get
> > overloaded, SPF and Sender-ID both let you use a short record pointing
> > to a longer record somewhere else as a band-aid.
>
> That's a fine workaround, but even *those* records will get caught by
> wildcards.  Wildcards won't work.

I don't see how repeating this claim makes it any more persuasive.  All
the records I know about can use the short pointer band-aid, and it looks
easy enough to have five or six band-aid records and still fit in a UDP
packet.  What am I missing?  I realize that a hundred TXT records won't
fit, but I don't see more than about four TXT record applications showing
up any time soon.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@xxxxxxxx, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.