On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
Having said that, I should reevaluate your posts with the assumption that
you are actually talking about a senderID alternative, rather than
an SPF alternative. You might have some great ideas that would do
an end run around Microsoft. To an end-user, rfc2822 headers are
much more visible, and where the user needs the most help in
recognizing "phishing" attacks. I say, I *should* reevaluate your
posts, however, I'm not really up to speed on 2822 authentication, having been
concentrating on the 2821 end of things.
In particular, senderID doesn't address forwarders very well, and it
sounds like you've given it some thought. You may be on to something.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.