ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP

2006-09-09 11:45:40
The owner of the domain does get to state that legitimate messages are 
signed and to insist that it is extreemly likely that messages without 
authentication headers are forgeries intended to defraud the recipient.

And recipients should pay attention to that statement because ... ? 

Because they don't want to waste time reading forged mail nor pass on forged 
mail to their subscribers.

Some people who claim they are heavily phished will be right.  Others will 
not be, and there is no way to tell from the SSP who is ebay and who is 
some dimwit who doesn't understand that you shouldn't say I sign 
everything if you use Yahoogroups.

First, one needn't be phished (or wait to be phished) in order to be motivated 
to protect one's domain (a key corporate asset) from unauthorized use.  My 
house has never been robbed, yet my doors all have locks.  Second, the fact 
that someone might errantly configure a "I sign all" when they shouldn't must 
not stop us from providing benefit to those who will properly understand and 
use the system.

-- 
Arvel 




_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>