--- Ned Freed <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com> wrote:
A secondary goal is just that: A secondary goal. It is not necessarily a
compromise, or risky, or viable. These are all disjoint characteristics.
I disagree completely. We're not building a comprehensive system for
insuring message integrity here.
This seems like semantics to me. DKIM has to have a certain level of message
integrity to work and you're simply disagreeing over the level (or levels) of
integrity. If so, fine, I understand that you disagree.
We already have four of those; we don't need a fifth.
Do you want to advocate one of these mechanisms in conjunction with DKIM?
No, I want to leave them to do what they are good and and not try to have DKIM
solve every problem with message integrity out there. We have a very specific
problem to solve here. We need to focus on solving that problem.
Ned