[ietf-dkim] Review of draft-fenton-dkim-threats-01
ietf-dkim at kitterman.com
Tue Nov 1 16:32:53 PST 2005
On 11/01/2005 16:51, Andrew Newton wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2005, at 2:27 PM, Arvel Hathcock wrote:
> >> Right, but the important question is whether the
> >> benefit of reducing exact domain spoofing is of
> >> much value.
> > The value of reducing domain spoofing is presuppositional and
> > entirely self-evident. To continually question whether there is
> > value in detecting falsehood seems more a question for philosophy
> > rather than engineering. I think it's a distraction that we should
> > just dismiss.
> I do not agree. Since the concept of email sender authentication has
> been in the mainstream, critics have always suggested that spammers
> will simply just buy another domain. Therefore, it does not seem
> evident to many people. And I think this is the root of the
> disagreement here.
> Please do not take this as a voice against going forward with DKIM.
There are certainly those who hold that view. If all you are worried about is
general spam, then that's probably a pretty reasonable view.
As a domain owner, what I want is for the bad guys to use somebody else's
domain, not mine. So, yes, spammers buying another domain is a good benifit
from my POV.
More information about the ietf-dkim