[mail-vet-discuss] DKIM dependency
alexey.melnikov at isode.com
Thu Oct 9 03:38:38 PDT 2008
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
>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.
>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?
More information about the mail-vet-discuss