----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas Otis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "John Levine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I agree. A policy of any form will be unable to > reliably block phishing messages or identify what > messages should be annotated in isolation of other > information. However, DKIM related information can be > applied beyond the MTA. Think outside the MTA box. : ) Doug, its hard to follow you, so if I am wrong, I apologize but I think I think you need to stop saying DKIM-BASE or SSP can help with anti-phishing. It can not and AFAIK no one on the either side of the SSP camp believes that is the case. I believe you are promoting a MUA solution and you doing so from an application standpoint when in fact the DKIM-BASE and SSP discussions are pretty much focused on the MTA level (or server side). But then again, maybe this is part of the problem: - MTA DKIM promoters (SMTP vendors, Admins) - MUA DKIM promoters (MUA authors, plug-ins, DMA) These are TWO conflictive solutions. Keep in mind we have both MTA and MUA products so my technical engineering is purely based on whats the most effective and feasible solution. Centralizing the mail operaton will no doubt provide the most benefits. -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
