On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 01:56:52PM -0600, Seth Goodman wrote:
| > Again using "we" too loosely. You may have enough crap. I certainly
| > have too much crap. I am looking for things that are concise, simple
| > and work. DK is that. And, as this message is DK signed and I didn't
| > burden you with cryptographic responsibility, I don't see how you
| > argument holds water. DK is both transparent to the end user and does
| > not require participation.
|
| Except that if a recipient implements it, all mailing list traffic from
| lists that are not DK-aware will fail authentication on every DK-signed
| post. That is hardly transparent.
if SPF passes, auth passes.
if DK passes, auth passes.
DK may fail on mailing lists, but SPF will pass.
that's why teams have many players: if one misses the ball,
someone else still has a chance to save.
that's the philosophy from Unified SPF. :)
Page 11 of the whitepaper has an algorithm diagram.