> Hector Santos wrote: >Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 12:55 PM >To: Frank Ellermann >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP vs. reputation > >Oh I see, you are "redirecting" the original mail to someone >else as if it was "new." > >You are not using the FORWARDING features of the MUA. > >Well, I think I would prefer the protection here because even >though you are a GOOD GUY, if we allow this loophole, the bad >guy will exploit it. >
Absolutely true. >The end result is that if you see my messages are "special", >then you know that you can't "resend" it as "me." > All your messages are special! >Your MUA should tell ya > > "Sorry, you can't do this. This message is Special." > I agree that a well behaved MUA would do this. BAD MUA! BAD! >We can't have it both ways. The same way of doing things and >expect to get the security we are seeking. > +1 Found this interesting article which is germane even if I don't agree with the authors conclusion and desire to pull an "Al Hague". E-mail and its security discontents Why Microsoft, Cisco, IBM and others need to step up to protect SMTP http://www.arnnet.com.au/index.php/id;1603491549 >Something has to give and this one is perfectly acceptable to >me because it helps secured my domains as I intended it to be >secured with a DKIM=STRICT. > And this desire for protection grows as we all run in circles. The other day I was going through some boxes that had been sitting in my basement for a (long) while. Found a box filled with internet industry magazines from the mid-to-late 1990s. With only a few tweaks the articles and letters to the editor related to abusive email would be applicable today. Food for thought. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
