On 10/06/2009 03:08 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > Practicalities, which explained the failure of PGP and S/MINE. Great > protocol, except they are unworkable for the common user, like most security > protocols coming out of IETF (and it is not me who is saying it but I heard > it in a variation from Stephen Squires) > > The people that want the signing, are not the people that manage the mail > server(s) and even less the people that manage the DNS. Now good luck to get > them all on a conference call and explain they have to rework their > priorities and make all that work.
Yeah, yeah, been there, accomplished that. I still don't buy it. People who are *really* clueless completely outsource their email, including their MX record management as well. If those outsourcers can't deal with DKIM... they should probably find another outsourcer who can. All of this is rather academic though: the big guys are signing now because they can find some biz justification to do so. Until that biz justification percolates down, it doesn't really make much difference what we do. When it does, the DNS "problem" will evaporate. Mike > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Thomas"<[email protected]> > To: "Bill Oxley"<[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, 7 October, 2009 8:46:57 AM GMT +12:00 Fiji > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] The mystery of third party signatures > > On 10/06/2009 10:30 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> C) I can sell the ability to do 3rd party DKIM signing for those companies >> who are described in A) > > If you're getting paid for signing somebody else's traffic, doesn't > it make sense that the service can do some hand holding to get their > DNS set up correctly? In fact, if you're handling their DNS too > -- which seems likely on average -- what exactly is the problem? _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
