Earl Hood wrote:
It may be better to state:
A verified domain signature within the message should facilitate
domain-defined identification methods so domains can more easily
deal with abuse complaints.
Don't get me wrong, but all this crypto-signing-header-DNS
effort only to get a rock solid 2142 / abuse.net identity ?
The "opposition" doesn't care about abuse reports. And for
"white hats" the Received lines allow to identify some entity
potentially interested in abuse reports.
There's even an ID field, AFAIK that can be a "magic cookie"
(opaque ID) as Doug wants it.
You want deployment, both signers (apparently not necessarily
related to originators) and receivers need obvious benefits.
"DKIM offers an unforgeable abuse report address" can't be all.
How does it hurt spammers / attackers, where are they forced
to do something different than today ?
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org