Scott Kitterman wrote:
I do think that DKIM needs to decide if it's just some random signed
identifier or if it has a relationship to reducing forgery. Some have
indicated they see sufficient value in the signed identifier. I don't.
Forgery was definitely what IIM was trying deal with, and that's
certainly how I read DK -- and their web mail interface sure
seems to be trying to take advantage of it in that way. From
that, you pretty much get the ability to use it in the first
capacity for free -- how could you stop somebody from using the
identity for non-DKIM use even if you wanted to? I think it's
worth considering how we can make those interfaces cleaner,
but I don't think it's worth ratholing the whole effort to
do that.
Mike
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org