On 02/15, Per Jessen wrote: > Change provider. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an > underscore in DNS records. They're used for several things - _sip and > _domainkey for instance. Also see RFC2181.
RFC 2181 section 11 does seem to agree. However, I still haven't found evidence of it ever being used in an A record. Also, I have SRV records with underscores that they accept just fine. And I'm not willing to change providers for this. If I need to change provider, it's too great a barrier to general adoption. On 02/15, Per Jessen wrote: > I checked my bind setup too, and I have the default for check-names - no > complaints. It is however, perhaps, worth noting that my _sip and > _domainkey names are for SRV records, not A records. Yup, no problems with SRV records - either with my secondary DNS provider, or bind before I changed check-names to ignore. On 02/15, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > In such case you should not compare MTX with SPF and or DKIM, instead > you should clearly state that MTX is designed to do something very > different than SPF and DKIM are trying to do. Good point. I did not ever intend to say that MTX is better than SPF or DKIM, just that MTX is better at what it is intended for which the others are not intended for. On 02/15, Justin Mason wrote: > I could vaguely recall it, then someone else reminded me of the exact > name. There have been a lot of MARID proposals in the past... "MTA Authorization Records in DNS." Good acronym for me to know, thanks. It was an IETF Working Group that was terminated in 2004: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2004/092704ietfspam.html -- "I'd rather be happy than right any day." - Slartiblartfast, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy http://www.ChaosReigns.com
