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

[Jeff Macdonald <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 06:03:34PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> 
> Jeff Macdonald 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.
> 
> 
> Feel free to start a separate effort to develop the 'right' approach.
>
> It strikes me as unlikely that pursuing the question in this venue, at this
> stage of effort, is likely to be productive for either approach.

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult those who have been working very hard at
this. If anything, all this hard work has made it very clear to me that
it is hard to ask the right question. 

At http://mipassoc.org/dkim there is this:

DKIM ... for Consideration as a new E-Mail Standard to Address E-Mail Forgery
and Phishing.

It seems the question that was asked was "how do we make the message
tamper proof?"

And perhaps I need to review the DKIM website. I went out on the 'limb'
sleep deprived (a newborn has arrived), and as that limb broke, I
remembered that DKIM is not a complete solution.

Which means there are other questions to be asked.


-- 
:: 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