Re: RFC 2487 [5]: Suggest dropping of "TLS Required"- forbid and extensions of current standards

[Mark Baugher <mbaugher at cisco.com>]

On Aug 26, 2005, at 9:38 AM, Keith Moore wrote:

> Mark Baugher wrote:
> > I don't necessarily see the two needing to be combined so closely.
>
> perhaps not, but if DKIM doesn't address either phishing, spam, or 
> viruses, and it doesn't authenticate content authorship, what good is 
> it?

I said that I don't think phishing should be combined so closely with 
the problem of spam.  But you throw in viruses and claim that it 
doesn't address any of the combined three.  Where's this coming from?  
I think you're wrong: DKIM does address spam and email-borne viruses.  
I think it addresses phishing spam as well but the phishing problem has 
yet another complication.

Mark
>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf