Hadmut,
Accountability does not mean that the originator is comforming to good
policies.
HD> Accountability requires the posibility to track back the originator.
HD> That's what's RMX is about.
Why? What makes it likely or certain that someone coming through an RMX
host is not sending spam?
HD> Because he can be tracked back and hold responsible.
what does it mean to hold them responsible, when there are no global
rules to which a sender is held?
We have had PGP and S/MIME for approximately 10 years. They permit
identifying the originator. Yet they have not achieved any significant
adoption or use in the Internet. How will you achieve success now?
HD> That's not logical. If PGP and S/MIME didn't have succes yet, it
HD> doesn't mean that no authentication method will ever have success.
However, it DOES mean that it is dangerous to claim that authentication
will be used as a basic technique, unless there is some reason to
believe that the technique will be successful now, in spite of not being
successful for 10 years.
HD> The failure of PGP and S/MIME is a design criterion for RMX:
HD> It is designed to avoid the problems of PGP and S/MIME,
they perform entirely different tasks.
HD> Furthermore, PGP and S/MIME are a completely different story.
HD> You're comparing apples and oranges.
the reference was to authenticated senders. pgp and s/mime authenticate
senders. rmx does not.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg