In <[email protected]>, on 02/12/2012
at 03:54 PM, "BANK SECURITY" <[email protected]> said:
>Sorry, that makes no sense at all. Every DKIM verification record is
>a TXT record containing a public key.
We seem to be talking at cross purposes. I'm not saying that DKIM or
SPF infrastructure can be used for the purpose, I'm saying that it is
possible to define and deploy a means of authenticating addresses in
the header.
>The basic fact is that there is nothing I can say to improve my
>reputation
I'm not addressing reputation. Verifying that the sender is authorized
to use a domain name in no way implies that he is legitimate. In fact,
spammers were early adopters of SPF, as you know.
>So I can publish text records to prove that something is from me,
>but not to prove that I'm nice.
I was addressing authentication, not reputation.
--
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
