Re: WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to...

Hector Santos <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On 5/3/2014 8:35 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:

    >> So, how in the world does this scale to having thousands of "trusted"
    >> mailing lists?  Seriously.

    > We won't know if we don't try it.  Of course, there is a management
    > issue, but its doable. Simple but new DNS tools are needed. Surely, DNS
    > is robust enough it.

Uhm, there is a limit on how big a TXT record can be.
As far as I can see, I have to list all the mailing lists into asl=

    > It would not fit within a "asl=" tag list of course, but ATPS records
    > would be used for a larger scale.  For example, for isdg.net I have the
    > following records:

    > _adsp._domainkey TXT ( "dkim=all; atps=y;
    > asl=ietf.org,beta.winserver.com,santronics.com,isdg.net,winserver.com,megabytecoffee.com,mapurdy.com.au,mipassoc.org,gmail.com,googlegroups.com;"

    > e4qssg6j6f6vggflfwk56n6ppxlbglmu._atps TXT ( "v=atps01;
    > d=megabytecoffee.com;" ) jchjykxmwknbyfge2bg4td6add264olh._atps TXT (
    > "v=atps01; d=winserver.com;" ) kjshf2duqstols65zbhuytbbyr3zdecf._atps
    > TXT ( "v=atps01; d=gmail.com;" ) n3lsehml2wgbfxov7hsak2qzsubsefhb._atps
    > TXT ( "v=atps01; d=mipassoc.org;" )
    > pq6xadozsi47rluiq5yohg2hy3mvjyoo._atps TXT ( "v=atps01; d=ietf.org;" )
    > q42vdaxs6p26zflt3hcvqey3zp5aivxj._atps TXT ( "v=atps01; d=isdg.net;" )
    > rni5mcktu7c46wfgxg4mhhnv4t62bi3y._atps TXT ( "v=atps01;
    > d=mapurdy.com.au;" ) tudfisabn5dz3vjm2kxcehc5attdbqh6._atps TXT (
    > "v=atps01; d=santronics.com;" )

    > Can DNS handle 30,000 for a zone file?  No problem.

Yes, but that's not the place there is a scaling problem.

    >> I was thinking that a (list) machine, receiving a signed message with
    >> p=reject, would respond with some new 3xx code that would say, "great,
    >> I'd love to help you, but you didn't delegate to me....", and then
    >> include some transactional part that would help the right
    >> authorization occur.  Perhaps going back to the *user* to confirm.

    > Yes, it would be one deployment option.

    > The IETF should be documenting the practical possible deployment
    > options for a SMTP REJECT protocol semantic without the lost of
    > security. The alternative options provide the same security protection
    > to the end-user -- no harm, which I think includes:

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [email protected]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [


--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBU2aV6YCLcPvd0N1lAQLaKwf6Ay49E3aibzUEt/xddu8go6EMjVYQcKcs
xyu9dyWop4LieEfNnzLksy7tMxSTw9YN3eF2eszkgd/qQhwT9aoCCymIR1be+XfF
j5r4RVqqD8aX2CsfToz+Cf6tAdbaLtyydV3ZpkZogF1JqKOQJ0lh+DY/sSg6KIS6
36itss0NNwrMZ3yOYYEU0lrEJu+L7abKhQaDB256JSiav2bs2ZvT9TzOme3scEP0
f38MmMQ9b6NjOBEbIT4LFxPVhtz1xxwmFKGE6wod1EqhUN1x+X+9bmsWvfkO42Nk
hYo2GEdEPUD9o2XB+QZ/UnIfX0qkaHGmHM2ITGn32ce7XcyZGEf14g==
=JtRH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----