Måns Nilsson writes:
> NS5
> 21
> DNSKEY3
> SPF 1
> A 28
> NSEC 62
> AFSDB 3
> RP1
> MX2
> CNAME 9
> SOA 2
> RRSIG 147
> TXT 6
> SSHFP 14
> SRV 20
> DS4
> Total:16 rrtypes in zone
No TLSA records?
Bjørn
Subject: Re: a detour DANE, was A Deep Dive on the Recent Widespread DNS
Hijacking Date: Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 08:47:19AM + Quoting Mike Meredith
(mike.mered...@port.ac.uk):
> On 27 Feb 2019 13:07:09 -0500, "John Levine" may have
> written:
> > The IETF one says that no
Subject: Re: a detour DANE, was A Deep Dive on the Recent Widespread DNS
Hijacking Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 07:59:49PM -0800 Quoting Seth Mattinen
(se...@rollernet.us):
> On 2/27/19 7:02 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> > I have proposed many times to just move domain WHOIS data i
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:59:49 -0800, Seth Mattinen may
have written:
> We kind of have that with RP records. But does anyone do it?
I used to before various IPAM vendors claimed it was deprecated; I've still
got legacy code that queries for it (and the TXT equivalent) as well as the
new gooey IPAM
On 27 Feb 2019 13:07:09 -0500, "John Levine" may have
written:
> The IETF one says that nobody used type 99, and some of the few
> implementations we saw were broken, so we deprecated it.
And just after I'd finished adding in all the SPF records too, so I had to
turn around and take all them out
On 2/27/19 7:02 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
I have proposed many times to just move domain WHOIS data into a new
RRTYPE and let whoever owns the domain put in that whatever they want,
including (and perhaps most usefully for many) just a URL for further
detail.
We kind of have that with RP re
> On 28 Feb 2019, at 1:13 pm, John R. Levine wrote:
>
> FYI:
>
>> SMTP transitioned from A to MX.
>
> No, it didn't. A surprising number of real mail hosts only publish an A, and
> I lost the battle to say that MX shouldn't fall back to . It does.
You have missed the point. No one p
I have proposed many times to just move domain WHOIS data into a new
RRTYPE and let whoever owns the domain put in that whatever they want,
including (and perhaps most usefully for many) just a URL for further
detail.
Obviously registries/registrars/ICANN can require and maintain more
specific a
FYI:
SMTP transitioned from A to MX.
No, it didn't. A surprising number of real mail hosts only publish an A,
and I lost the battle to say that MX shouldn't fall back to . It
does.
SPF could have been the same except people were impatient and had
unrealistic expectations of how long
> On 28 Feb 2019, at 9:03 am, John R. Levine wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> Agreed. Additionally it suddenly went from something being done along
>> with a experiment to being “a experiment on can you transition to a new
>> type”. The transition to type99 was well und
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019, Mark Andrews wrote:
Agreed. Additionally it suddenly went from something being done along
with a experiment to being “a experiment on can you transition to a new
type”. The transition to type99 was well underway. ...
No, really, we had numbers. Approximately nobody was u
> On 28 Feb 2019, at 7:28 am, Måns Nilsson wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: a detour DANE, was A Deep Dive on the Recent Widespread DNS
> Hijacking Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 01:07:09PM -0500 Quoting John Levine
> (jo...@iecc.com):
>> In article <20190227161327.ga27...@bes
Subject: Re: a detour DANE, was A Deep Dive on the Recent Widespread DNS
Hijacking Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 01:07:09PM -0500 Quoting John Levine
(jo...@iecc.com):
> In article <20190227161327.ga27...@besserwisser.org> you write:
> >that is RFC 7208.[0]
>
> >[0
In article <20190227161327.ga27...@besserwisser.org> you write:
>that is RFC 7208.[0]
>[0] This document tries to deprecate RRTYPE 99 for SPF. By stating that
>only TXT records can be trusted. ...
This must be a very different RFC 7208 from the one that the IETF published.
The IETF one says that
14 matches
Mail list logo
