Re: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy

[Jeff Macdonald <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 08:56:37PM -0400, John L wrote:

> senders are not the right people to judge their own importance.

So, I've been thinking pretty much the same thing after seeing all the
recent threads going on. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that
DKIM and related tech are the wrong approach.

There is an interesting quote from J.P. Rangaswami in the Sept. issue
of Linux Journal (pg 44):

"If you go to many Eastern countries, _identity_ is not about who I am,
because the I is very unusual. Identity is about _what I belong to_.
Identity is a statement of the community that I belong to. Identity is
a statementof things that I will associate with me, that empower me as
a result of belonging to something..."

There are many discussions about 'which Identity' to use in 'Sender
Authentication' schemes. I think it is time to create a new Identity
simply because it seems all the current identities have their own
flaws.

Once that is done, something that allows a Sender and Receiver to
establish a relationship and trust with each other can be built. The
system I'm thinking about allows a Sender to express the desire for a
relationship and only when the Receiver _wants_ this relationship does
the trust mechanism come into play.

-- 
:: Jeff Macdonald | Principal Engineer, Messaging Technologies
:: e-Dialog | [e-mail]
:: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421 
:: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118 
:: www.e-dialog.com

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html