----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Otis" <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
To: "John Levine" <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com>
I agree. A policy of any form will be unable to
reliably block phishing messages or identify what
messages should be annotated in isolation of other
information. However, DKIM related information can be
applied beyond the MTA. Think outside the MTA box. : )
Doug, its hard to follow you, so if I am wrong, I apologize but I think I
think you need to stop saying DKIM-BASE or SSP can help with anti-phishing.
It can not and AFAIK no one on the either side of the SSP camp believes that
is the case.
I believe you are promoting a MUA solution and you doing so from an
application standpoint when in fact the DKIM-BASE and SSP discussions are
pretty much focused on the MTA level (or server side).
But then again, maybe this is part of the problem:
- MTA DKIM promoters (SMTP vendors, Admins)
- MUA DKIM promoters (MUA authors, plug-ins, DMA)
These are TWO conflictive solutions. Keep in mind we have both MTA and MUA
products so my technical engineering is purely based on whats the most
effective and feasible solution. Centralizing the mail operaton will no
doubt provide the most benefits.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html