On Oct 31, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Otis" <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
To: "Michael Thomas" <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
The real risk is that third-party services will become forfeit along
with email-address mobility. This will impact many similar services
such as list-servers, news-articles, e-invites, greeting-cards, and
kiosk-style and mobile methods of communication. Access to these
services will require an account with the specific provider.
Great, then maybe we finally found a solution to MAIL FRAUD and we can
finally all get back to work.
Directly binding an email-address with the DKIM signature WILL NOT
reduce the amount of fraud permitted by this system. There remains
the "pretty-name" display problem, a "look-alike" domain problem,
compromised systems, and replay-abuse that DKIM/SSP currently DOES
NOT address at all. Binding the email-address indirectly offers a
more effective means at preventing fraud without destroying current
practices and eliminating the freedom of choice currently available.
DKIM is very much needed to protect the email messages transport
system. The scope of this protection MUST NOT be extended to
directly include an email-address. This will be abused, where an
indirect method offers greater protections without disrupting any
existing services.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org