Re: DKIM meets DNS
RFC 1464 says the server implementations place a limit, this is not an
Some DNS server implementations place limits on the size or number of
TXT records associated with a particular owner. Certain
implementations may not support TXT records at all.
Having said that, more and more people are using DKIM, especially with
large profile players like google and microsoft supporting it, this
means that awareness and penetration will over time increase.
There has been much debate on this list in the past about using the TXT
record for something other than what it was originally intended (this
was around SPF) though I do feel that there are fewer and fewer people
using this record for anything other than SPF or DKIM...
On 24/05/2010 12:46, Phillip de Wet wrote:
> I send out a tiny amount of bulk mail, in the form of a newsletter five days a week, but I'm determined to do so
as responsibly as possible. I've been led to believe that DKIM is a good thing, so I'm trying to implement
it. But Hetzner, which hosts my domains, tells me their DNS servers can't support the 128-bit keys because
TXT fields are limited to 100 characters.
> Knowing considerably less than bugger-all about either DNS or DKIM, I'd love to hear that the Grand
Assembled ZA Elders think. DKIM: good thing/bad thing? Is there a valid reason, say stability, to limit
the length of DNS entries?