Re: [dane] [openpgp] The DANE draft

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 06/08/15 11:03, Carsten Strotmann wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On 06/08/15 11:58 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>> I might agree but I think the gain for this is so incredibly small, that
>>>> I think the gain for use of online signers plus email address
>>>> corrections by the smtp+dnssec combined server is actually a more likely
>>>> and minorly useful thing to have.
>> Can you point me at a DNS server (or real specification for one)
>> that generates responses in any similar fashion? I'm not aware of
>> any that actually do, (even if they could do), but that my just be
>> my ignorance.
> 
> PowerDNS with a remote backend could do this, but it would require some
> glue code to be written by the admin to be able to talk to the smtp-server.
> 
> I can evision such an installation for a few large mail providers, but
> not for the majority of mail server installations.

Thanks. So that implies that b32 can only in practice offer
advantage to the large mail providers who want to do PGP
like this and fuzzy stuff with "AccountName+JustMadeUp@domain"
type addresses. (For other kinds of fuzziness, e.g. upper/lower
case initial letters, I think anyone can prepare a few hashes
in advance and do almost as well.)

I think what you say above also implies that b32 will offer
no benefit to the long tail as they'll have zonefiles or the
moral equivalent.

Seems to me like more reason to not do b32. I would guess that
the large mail providers won't do this since we've not heard
from them that they would, and in fact we're heard 2nd hand that
the won't (iirc, I'm open to correction) and those large mail
providers tend to not be shy about saying what it is they would
like when they're interested in something;-)

Cheers,
S.


> 
> Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dane mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
> 
>