Re: DKIM

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



All of this has been aired extensively among experts on at least two public lists as well as many private ones. I have personally had a lot to say on the matter but don't see the point of repeating it here.

Mark
On Aug 26, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Keith Moore wrote:

perhaps not, but if DKIM doesn't address either phishing, spam, or viruses, and it doesn't authenticate content authorship, what good is it?
I said that I don't think phishing should be combined so closely with the problem of spam. But you throw in viruses and claim that it doesn't address any of the combined three. Where's this coming from? I think you're wrong: DKIM does address spam and email-borne viruses.

No it doesn't, it just accepts on faith that signatures with vague semantics and poor granularity are enough to distinguish spammers and virus propagators from well-behaved senders, and defers the actual work of distinguishing between these to a vaguely concept of reputation servers, which is out-of-scope for DKIM therefore doesn't have to be understood.

In other words, it's not solving the problem or even trying to understand the problem, it's just moving it.


Keith


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]