One of the new domains set up in 2002 was .pro, with three initial
subdomains .med.pro, .law.pro, and .cpa.pro. They'd register applicants
only after checking evidence that they're licensed in the appropriate
profession. (Applicant sends state and license number, registry looks them
up to be sure
Anyone can send a spoof through say a misconfigured email server
responsible for that TLD say through remixer, posing as someone on that
network. Just because someone has some 'nifty' tld means absolutely
nothing. If someone truly wants to be held accountable in such fields they
could always use
Not to get into an accountability issue here, but in certain professions I
feel digital messages should be signed entirely,
I entirely agree, but you need both signatures and verifiable addresses.
A PGP or S/MIME signature assures you that the mail definitely came from
the address it purports
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:48:47 EST, John R Levine said:
A PGP or S/MIME signature assures you that the mail definitely came from
the address it purports to come from, but it doesn't tell you whether that
person is who you think it is. That's where limited access domains can
help.
Umm... no.
John R Levine wrote:
A PGP or S/MIME signature assures you that the mail definitely came from
the address it purports to come from, but it doesn't tell you whether that
person is who you think it is. That's where limited access domains can
help.
No actually a PGP signature assures you that a
an out of band method (phone, in person, business card). I don't see how
a limited access domain helps in binding keys to people, unless the
registrars are going to start acting as CAs as well. Anyone can create a
PGP key with [EMAIL PROTECTED] as an associated email address.
The .pro
