Folks,
>> So my question is: Beyond this technique, does the crypto piece add
>> enough additional value to be worth the trouble of key management,
>> etc.?
To me the answer is clearly no unless it can piggybank on key
management
from another system like DK.
I agree, and I thought this was the intent all along.
For reference, this is the reason that the current BATV specification no longer
attempts to specify the details of a publicly verifiable RFC2821.MailFrom
signature.
The more the design team talked about the issue, the more compelling was the
requirement that the any public mailfrom signing technique piggyback on an
existing scheme. And since there is not yet any clear winner for that job, and
since new candidates seem to be appearing, we decided that the BATV spec should
dodge the topic entirely, and rely on the scheme-naming extensibility of the
batv syntax.
--
Brandenburg InternetWorking
dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com
+1.408.246.8253