>The whole approach here is "An A record in this zone has a meaning >different from the meaning in other zones". That creates a DNS >context for the RRTYPE based on the zone of the query, which is not >what the DNS currently uses for disambiguating the types of >requests/responses. Didn't that plan go out the window in 1996 with RFC 2052? > Using a different RR type puts you back into the standard way of > doing things. Hypothetically speaking, I sort of agree with you. But considering that to a rough order of magnitude, all the MTAs on the net use DNSBLs the way they work now, you'd expect the ground to be littered with bodies if reusing A records caused actual damage. The only damage I've seen, and I think the only damage anyone else has seen, is when a speculator puts a wildcard on an abandoned DNSBL domain. That's why I documented the pair of test addresses, to defend against that. It's certainly a band-aid, but like real life band-aids it does the job without making things worse and easily enough that people are actually likely to do it. What you're proposing is a skin graft, which would be more elegant if it happened, but it won't. Regards, John Levine, johnl@xxxxxxxx, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf