On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 07:44:36AM -0700, Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
> Thanks again. This is a pretty specialized application (at this time) so
> the RRTYPEs used are limited. I am trying to make the model and Pg
> implementation as generic as possible in case it gets released into the
> wild later.
I made the mistake in the past of not supporting the unknown type, and
regretted it. The nice thing about implementing unknown is that you
can automatically add another RR later, even if you're not sure what
it's supposed to look like.
> plus the company I'm doing this for gets some strange requests from their
> customers -- not always correct or logical. :-(
We DNS geeks have seen every mistake in the book, and some of the
worst ideas are still being developed. (In Dublin, I heard someone
from the DKIM working group at last suggest that maybe using the TXT
RRTYPE wasn't such a hot idea. I think it's now 5 years since the DNS
folks pointed out that TXT was going to cause headaches later. Sigh.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@commandprompt.com
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/