Re: More haste, less speed.

> On Mar 6, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker 
> <phill(_at_)hallambaker(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> ​Again, you are mistaken.​
I think you meant to say, that you disagree, at least in general, but that your
experience in the SMTP space is more limited, so I might be right in the SMTP 
case.

> ​Security Policy can benefit from DNSSEC but it absolutely does not require 
> DNSSEC
> to provide value.
This is not true for SMTP, which is vulnerable to downgrade attacks if the 
security
policy is not made tamper-resistant.

> Since the current Internet security policy is to require no security, any 
> policy
> publication mechanism adds value over the baseline.
Yes, against passive attacks, but STARTTLS is already sufficient for that.

-- 
        Viktor.