spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Re: RFC 2821 and responsibility for forwarding

2004-12-07 08:51:18
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of David 
Woodhouse
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 10:36 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Re: RFC 2821 and responsibility for
forwarding


On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 10:26 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Last time I posted the problems I had with the "alternatives", you didn't
reply to that post.

Was that the S/MIME one? I couldn't read it, although I did upgrade my
MUA today, and now I can. I'll take a look.

Which of these so called alternatives can provide forgery
protection today
for those of us who are domain owners, but not DNS server or MTA
operators?

I see nothing which prevents you from doing DK or IIM in your MUA. You
do need the MTA to co-operate for SES though.

I also posted it again without the signature.

Could you post links to where I can download software to sign DK/IIM?  I'm
certainly open to looking into it.

Scott Kitterman


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>