----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "Michael Thomas" <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
My comment was not that it is bad to have partial solutions,
but that it is bad to set expectations inappropriately and
that the discussion on this list suggests that we are at
serious risk of promoting DKIM as an anti-phishing
"solution" inappropriately.
Just so you know, no one, atleast not me, has said that SSP or DKIM-BASE
itself will protect against near-domain style spoofing A.K.A phishing. So
it be a mistake to believe this is what being advocated. No. Absolutely
not. I could be wrong, but I think it is only Mr. Otis talking about
phishing and I think he is promoting something different and beyond from
DKIM-BASE and SSP as it is currently drafted, depending on MUA "Address
Books" etc.
That's beyond DKIM-BASE and SSP considerations in my "book."
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html