In
<f5833273385bb34f99288b3648c4f06f19c9a7d...@exch-c2.corp.cloudmark.com>,
on 02/12/2012
at 08:53 AM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> said:
>Despite DKIM passing on a message for any given domain, you don't
>know whether or not that domain name represents the entity claimed in
>the message header or body.
How is DKIM relevant to potential future standards? The statement was
"I can't conceive of an Internet-based technology that can confirm
intent or legitimacy of the signer/author/whatever.", not "I can't
conceive of a DKIM-based technology that can confirm intent or
legitimacy of the signer/author/whatever."
>In any case, if we were to speculate on any possible future
>authentication technology, this document will suffer more bloat than
>it already has.
I was suggesting that we shorten it rather than lengthen it, by making
a general statement rather than listing specific technologies.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
