----- Original Message -----
From: "Wietse Venema" <wietse(_at_)porcupine(_dot_)org>
To: <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION
hmmmmmmmmm, unless I didn't follow you right, I fail to
see the distinction or your point.
I get mail that pretends to be from my bank. The SSP says the mail
is 100% pure non-forged. However, the DKIM-BASE signing domain is
not in my list of trusted signing domains. I get a warning that
this mail could be sent by a party that I have no relationip with.
This may be a revolutionary concept to some, but a widely used
application called ssh has been using such tricks for 10 years.
Its approach to opportunistic authentication is not perfect for
purists, but it works for real people.
Having gone in circles twice, I think this is a good time to step
out of this thread.
That's fine by me Wietse, but keep in mind that you mistaken by continuing
to use a magic wand to change an apple into an orange, by using reputation
is part of the total solution when in fact, it is suppose to be out of scope
in this WG.
We all have, or atleast most modern systems use white/black or reputation
concepts. That's a natural. But that isn't part of the scope here.
In other words, the problem is when there is no white list environment or
more specifically an anonymous or unknown sender environment because that is
where most of the problem lies - how do deal with the unsolicited unknowns.
Anyway, I think we atleast in agreement that phishing will always remain to
be a problem outside of DKIM and/or SSP and even Trusted List ideas. This
requires, imv, ever evolving prologue interpretation of the message.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html