[mail-vet-discuss] DKIM dependency

[Alexey Melnikov]

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

>Dave CROCKER wrote:
>  
>
>>Folks should be explicit about making and documenting this choice:
>>
>>      Is the information being provided about DKIM or about a validated domain 
>>name?  
>>    
>>
>We want to validate the domain name.  How that's done is less important, 
>although choosing something easily adopted is certainly preferable.  
>That DKIM seems the most obvious approach doesn't mean it's the only 
>one, or that it's the one this draft needs to recommend as a SHOULD.
>  
>
Agreed.

>I'd be fine being generic and saying the administrator has to find some 
>way to secure that channel.  In fact, I think that's where we are now.
>  
>
I tend to agree that this is the best way forward.

>However, I suspect there are as many ways to do that as there are e-mail 
>architectures out there.  Thus, saying the channel SHOULD be secured and 
>then simply suggesting DKIM as one way to do so would be sufficient for me.
>  
>
Speaking personally, that would be fine with me (but I will reply 
separately to your original message in more details)

>The remark about not complicating mail systems any further seems to be 
>where I'm focusing.  Given that any participant in this system will need 
>to know which MTAs it can trust, any solution will have that problem to 
>solve.  I don't think any of the proposed solutions I've seen are more 
>complicated than the next.  So how do we go about picking one?
>  
>