I fail to see your point here. Anyone can deploy DKIM, there is nothing unfair about the DKIM architecture. The 'unfairness' that you appear to be complaining about is that DKIM solves a problem that only targets a relatively small number of Internet domains, although the effects of that attack are seen by everyone. Impersonation of a trusted brand is always going to assit a social engineering attack if this is possible. I do not understand the ideological calculus under which we should do nothing to protect consumers against attacks of this nature because we can't all have a trusted brand. > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:39 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: Fred Baker; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Spammers answering TMDA Queries > > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > Absolutely, and in fact I see mailing list management as a natural > early adopter for DKIM filtering. > > the problem I have with DKIM filtering is that it is only > effective for domains that can reasonably insist that all of > the mail originated by > users at that domain go through that domain's submission > servers. this > is a corner case, not the general case. sure the spammers will learn > to not use DKIM domains, but they'll just move to other > domains, and the vast majority of domains won't be able to > use DKIM without seriously impairing their users' ability to > send mail. of course, some of the large ISPs and MSPs like > it that way. > > frankly I don't think IETF should have backed a proposal that > was so unfairly biased toward a particular business model. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf