Not a WG per se topic, but then a data point about nanog going DKIM compliant:
"Nearly all of the spam I see is DKIM signed. It just makes messages
bigger. I'd just as soon our volunteers spend their times on other
things, myself."
___
NOTE WELL: This li
Douglas Otis wrote:
>>> Changing a reference of RFC3490 to RFC5890 already represents an
>>> incompatible change.
>> Your assertion is noted.
John, it is correct to reference RFC5890 but for any implementations
that currently have RFC3490 support there is a conflict verifiers need
to be aware
Michael Deutschmann wrote:
> Phishing attacks are *never* controllable by the domain being phished.
> Nothing forces an ISP to deploy receiverside ADSP at all.
>
> To change that, you need to invent some sort of certification for ISPs
> that they take reasonable steps to prevent forgery. Then ba
