On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:23:21 +0100, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> I would hope so because this would be a really stupid thing to do. > Without the next line of defense -- virus, malware, spam, phishing -- > you'd be setting your users up for big problems. Just because it's > DKIM signed from a good source doesn't mean it's not still evil. Have you ever seen an evil message from Ebay? And yet the current protocol will allow an evil mail _apparently_ from Ebay to appear, with no means for the recipient to detect the difference. And as regards using current malware detection software, can you please explain to us how that is supposed to catch an eveil mail signed by a brand-new throwaway domain that has not yet had time to acquire any reputation, good or bad? > > That's why all of this hand wringing is silly. We are not hand wringing. We are pointing out a protocol that, when applied in the current (and likely future) Real World, fails to deliver what it was intended to deliver. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: ...@clerew.man.ac.uk snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html