Keith Moore wrote: >> I agree that getting authentication into the email protocols is a good >> thing, but TLS does not achieve much more than SPF/Sender-ID in that >> respect. DKIM is a much better platform. > > > Not clear. As currently envisioned, DKIM doesn't address phishing > because it basically says "I saw this message" rather than "I wrote this > message". It doesn't authenticate transmission either because it > doesn't record to whom the message was transmitted. So it addresses the > spam problem only if you're willing to take a rather large leap of faith > in reputation services that have no reliable basis with which to > determine a domain's reputation, and a few other leaps of faith besides. i see... > > I think DKIM is fixable, but if it stays in its current form it will > only delay adoption of effective anti-phishing and anti-spam solutions > by a few more years. And several people in that proto-WG seem to think > that getting agreement on something that people have blind faith in is > more important than actually understanding whether and how it will solve > any real problems. hard words... so lets use state of the art, and thats tls for now. > > Keith > > tom _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf