On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 04:54:22PM +1100, Craig Sanders via luv-main wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 08:56:52PM -0500, Jason White wrote:
> > Russell Coker via luv-main <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> [...] And worse, DKIM cares about the From: header rather than the
> Sender: header.

I'm assuming this was one of those places where you meant DMARC, because
DKIM only cares about what you tell it to sign (or not, for that matter)

> This is just broken in every possible way.
> 
> > > Yes.  I'd appreciate it if people would stop acting like I'm doing
> > > something I want to do here.  I just want mail to go through
> > > reliably and I'm doing what is necessary to achieve that goal.
>
> [...] That's entirely the wrong thing to do. those who contribute may
> well stop bothering if they get annoyed enough, [...] driving away
> those who write the posts (that both they and the lurkers read) is
> self-defeating.

Conversely, it's actually caused me to contribute more than usual, merely
to express said annoyance, I'm not sure I want to burn any more calories
bothering in future, and have certainly considered unsubscribing.

> > Widespread use of DMARC will result in changes to well established
> > conventions.
> 
> IMO it's an attempt by major corporate players to completely take over
> email so that no email is ever sent that they don't get a copy of to
> examine and index and use to build up profiles on individuals.

If we're being generous, it's probably just a pleasant side affect.
However, I'm yet to see many 

> and to sell to the NSA etc of course.
> 
> Message forgery is a solved problem.  SPF works.  DKIM is a) overkill
> and b) unnecesary.
> 
> If individual senders need more identity verification than SPF, there
> are numerous encryption and signing options available....with support
> built in to many MUAs.

Agreed, PGP/GPG and S/MIME solved this long ago, with the added benefit
of end-to-end encryption.

> [...] those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat the
> same damned stupid mistakes.  This issue was settled definitively in
> the 90s.

Well said.

> [...] 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
luv-main mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main

Reply via email to