On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 02:54:59PM -0600, Seth Goodman wrote:
| Here's why I see this one differently: it's not an apples-to-apples
| comparison. Senders are also recipients, and want end-to-end validation and
| forged bounce protection. SPF+SRS doesn't have those properties but SPF+SES
| does.
|
| They could wait for DK, but they still don't get forged bounce protection,
| so they need to implement something else for that. Then the solution looks
| like SPF+BATV+DK or SPF+SES+DK. That's a lot of work, and gives the
| implementer no better authentication than SPF+SES alone.
fair enough; i'm going to define the whole product as
SPF+SES+SRS+DK and work to get that into MTAs and distributions.