----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My comment was not that it is bad to have partial solutions, > but that it is bad to set expectations inappropriately and > that the discussion on this list suggests that we are at > serious risk of promoting DKIM as an anti-phishing > "solution" inappropriately. Just so you know, no one, atleast not me, has said that SSP or DKIM-BASE itself will protect against near-domain style spoofing A.K.A phishing. So it be a mistake to believe this is what being advocated. No. Absolutely not. I could be wrong, but I think it is only Mr. Otis talking about phishing and I think he is promoting something different and beyond from DKIM-BASE and SSP as it is currently drafted, depending on MUA "Address Books" etc. That's beyond DKIM-BASE and SSP considerations in my "book." -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
