On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Douglas Otis wrote: > On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:11 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Douglas Otis wrote: > > > > > > This has been called a revocation-identifier in the past. It may be > > > described as a type of domain-cookie, or opaque-identifier. It would > > > permit a revocation mechanism and enable opportunistic identifications > > > that could even detect cross-domain forgery without any mailbox-address > > > constraints being applied. > > > > Could you expand on this last sentence? I missed any description of it you > > may have posted already. > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-otis-mass-reputation-01.txt > See section 8. Abating the replay attack
I don't see where that talks about using the revocation ID to detect forgery. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ BISCAY: WEST 5 OR 6 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. SHOWERS AT FIRST. MODERATE OR GOOD. _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
