> That's why DKIM can be useful for those who want to prevent forgeries.
> Why should everyone else be forced to do that?
We all know email is forgeable, but no non-technical person has this
expectation. Slowly moving email to a non-forgeable future is a good idea if you
ask me, as it aligns with what people expect. Any reputation tracking benefits
you get from that are a bonus (to me), since indeed most users are using
freemail domains anyway.
To get to that non-forgeable future though, enforcement needs to start happening
at some point. Otherwise, we'll stay right where we are. You may not mind that,
but most do.
Groetjes,
Louis
Op maandag 18 december 2023 om 17:00, schreef ml+mailop--- via mailop
<mailop@mailop.org>:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023, Paul Smith* via mailop wrote:
>
> > DKIM (and SPF) aren't anti-spam measures, and have never been promoted as
> > such. They're anti-forgery measures.
>
> I know that -- which is why I don't use either (besides other reasons,
> e.g., breaking existing mail mechanisms).
>
> > spammers can piggy-back on the good reputation of big companies like Google,
>
> As I mentioned before: 90% of the spam I get is from gmail --
> that's a "good reputation"?
>
> > Amazon, etc. They send mail pretending to be from someth...@amazon.com
> [someth...@amazon.com].
>
> That's why DKIM can be useful for those who want to prevent forgeries.
> Why should everyone else be forced to do that?
>
> --
> Please don't Cc: me, use only the list for replies, even if the
> mailing list software screws up the Reply-To header.
> _______________________________________________
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org [mailop@mailop.org]
> https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
> [https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop]
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
