On 10/06/2009 03:08 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
Practicalities, which explained the failure of PGP and S/MINE. Great
protocol, except they are unworkable for the common user, like most security
protocols coming out of IETF (and it is not me who is saying it but I heard
it in a variation from Stephen Squires)
The people that want the signing, are not the people that manage the mail
server(s) and even less the people that manage the DNS. Now good luck to get
them all on a conference call and explain they have to rework their
priorities and make all that work.
Yeah, yeah, been there, accomplished that. I still don't buy it. People who are
*really*
clueless completely outsource their email, including their MX record management
as well.
If those outsourcers can't deal with DKIM... they should probably find another
outsourcer
who can.
All of this is rather academic though: the big guys are signing now because
they can
find some biz justification to do so. Until that biz justification percolates
down,
it doesn't really make much difference what we do. When it does, the DNS
"problem"
will evaporate.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Thomas"<mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
To: "Bill Oxley"<Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com>
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org, MHammer(_at_)ag(_dot_)com
Sent: Wednesday, 7 October, 2009 8:46:57 AM GMT +12:00 Fiji
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] The mystery of third party signatures
On 10/06/2009 10:30 AM, Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com wrote:
C) I can sell the ability to do 3rd party DKIM signing for those companies
who are described in A)
If you're getting paid for signing somebody else's traffic, doesn't
it make sense that the service can do some hand holding to get their
DNS set up correctly? In fact, if you're handling their DNS too
-- which seems likely on average -- what exactly is the problem?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html