> Thomas Ptacek (the guy whose blog post you've linked) agrees with Thomas Ptacek (tptacek, the guy whose sub-thread you're replying to)? Not exactly a revelati

> Thomas Ptacek (the guy whose blog post you've linked) agrees with Thomas Ptacek (tptacek, the guy whose sub-thread you're replying to)? Not exactly a revelation. Lol, I didn't read the username. > So, that post is wrong and explicitly won't be fixed, you should not rely on the "facts" in it unless you want to get laughed at. I haven't analyzed everything in that blog post. However, the case it makes against DANE I think is convincing. I linked to that blog post since it was the one that made me realized that DANE was a bad idea when I was briefly a DANE enthusiast a few years ago. > Your mention of Comodo suggests you're badly confused. I accidentally slipped and used the wrong CA - I think "badly confused" is a bit strong for a slip of the tounge. > Don't put new things in .com unless you're comfortable with for-profit companies screwing you over whenever it suits them. It sound like you are also arguing that DANE is a bad idea. > DNSSEC can't make that worse, it's already terrible. I don't think I said anything to the contrary. I'm real confused by the aggressive tone - it seems like you agree with everything of substance I wrote and the things you don't agree with are things that I didn't actually say.