James A. Donald wrote:
> > > In order for [DKIM] to actually be any use, ...

>Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> > so what if an isp only signs email where ...

etc, etc.

You know, we've already had all these arguments on the DKIM mailing
list about a hundred times.  

It's true, just about everything that is wrong with DKIM is also wrong
with every other signature scheme.  The salient difference is that
DKIM sets its sights lower and is designed to be more easily
deployable so there is more of a chance that it can break out of the
ghetto where all the existing message signature schems languish, and
at least increase the amount of mail that peoples' known
correspondents have signed.  Despite a great deal of misreporting and
wishful thinking, we do know that it is neither a magic bullet against
spam nor against phishing.

Rather than having the same old arguments yet again, how about reading
the list archives linked from
http://www.mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-dkim.htm and at least argue about
something different?

John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for 
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to