Wtf
On Apr 22, 2016 3:00 PM, ietf-dkim-request(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org wrote:
Send ietf-dkim mailing list submissions to
ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ietf-dkim-request(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
You can reach the person managing the list at
ietf-dkim-owner(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ietf-dkim digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Fwd: [Lurk] Another outside the "box" use case: DKIM
(Dave Crocker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 12:48:48 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Fwd: [Lurk] Another outside the "box" use
case: DKIM
To: John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com>,
ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Message-ID: <57192EA0(_dot_)6070401(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
On 4/21/2016 11:50 AM, John Levine wrote:
The reason DKIM doesn't have the LURK problem is that the key issuer
directly controls the verification key with no intermediary doing
certification.
The text I was commenting on cited an issue with handing out "my private
key". That DKIM might have other benefits is nice, and might be added
benefits, they weren't the issue that was raised.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
<http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html>
End of ietf-dkim Digest, Vol 306, Issue 2
*****************************************
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html