I have a German Shepard, his purpose was not for protection but for companionship.
Never once did I tell the pet store that I wanted a guard dog or that I needed a pet for protection.
The really amazing thing is that... even though I did not specify it in any way - he will keep you out of my house.
I think if it is useful in "protecting", regardless of how it was intended or mandated, it will be used that way. Unless you specifically design the inherent protection out of it.
Regards,
Damon Sauer
On 8/1/06, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
> I believe that the basic disconnect here is that the protocol "protects"
> anything. The running assumption that I've seen the most support for is that
> the protocol *informs" other entities of the way the domain behaves, and the
> protocol consumer may or may not use that information in conjunction with
> other information to "protect" their incoming mail feed.
I like your phrasing quite a lot. I think it describes what DKIM does and does
not do quite well.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
