From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of
Stephen Pollei
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 12:42, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The fact is that we are going to need BOTH SPF and DK to
address all
the email authentication requirements that are out there. For
messaging convenience I try to encourage people to push SPF as an
anti-spam solution and DK in the anti-phishing area but we will
actually need both in both problems.
I don't see that SPF, DK, or IIM as being directly anti-spam
or anti-phish... All of those are anti-forgery. Further I
think that even a little bit of anti-forgery can work some
wonders.
Agreed, but remember the constraints we are working under here. The media
cannot accept a complex, subtle message, they get easily confused.
SPF is sufficient for the aspen framework for eliminating spam. DK is a good
platform to address many of the problems with phishing, but that does not
mean that the two are not complimentary since phishing is still a form of
spam and reducing spam is beneficial in stopping phishing.