[ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?
ietf-dkim at kitterman.com
Fri Dec 7 08:16:53 PST 2007
On Friday 07 December 2007 10:55, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Michael Thomas wrote:
> >> That mail abuse is such an extreme problem is probably the only reason
> >> we would consider such a mechanism, but we need to be careful that we do
> >> not use it to entirely disenfranchise possibly legitimate mail senders.
> > I assume you know what the meaning of "disenfranchise" is as you've
> > chosen to use it twice now. A legitimate user of my domain name is
> > exactly who I say is legitimate. There is no vote to be had on that
> > issue, and as such no vote to be taken away. Do you seriously dispute
> > that?
> Your perspective asserts certainties that we already know do not apply.
> My point is exactly that SSP will be operating in a context of significant
> uncertainty, yet it's design model really assumes differently.
I guess that's a yes.
If you believe that any random MTA has an equal right to emit mail claiming to
be from my domain, then I think there's little left to discuss. I totally
and completely understand why you think SSP is a bad idea.
Mike's point is the key one. His point is right one. From your perspective
then, I guess there's no phishing problem because anyone is equally
legitimate for sending from any domain.
More information about the ietf-dkim