[ietf-dkim] on DKIM as an anti-spam measure
mike at mtcc.com
Wed Aug 17 13:39:07 PDT 2005
Keith Moore wrote:
> Relative to DKIM's authentication model I'm asking for two things: one
> is the ability to separately authenticate successive submissions of
> the same message without destroying information about earlier
> submission. The other is the ability to authenticate envelope
> information in addition to header and body information. I'm asking
> for these because I know through long experience that sometimes it's
> important to know who originally sent a message, sometimes it's
> important to know who last sent a message, and sometimes it's
> important to know to whom the message was sent.
The question that gets asked here is: what problem are you trying to solve?
For my part, I think that forensic analysis as a side benefit of DKIM is a
nice to have. If you're thinking of going beyond that, you need to
what problem it is you're thinking of and how these tweeks would address
This is not an attack; like I said, I think that adding some relatively
reliable forensic scaffolding to email transmission may be a pretty
ok thing. If you thinking about another problem, then say it.
> DKIM needs to support what people need to do with email rather than
> cripple it.
I find this really hyperbolic and unhelpful. Cripple it? Please.
More information about the ietf-dkim