On 04 Apr 19:30, MJ Ray wrote:
Brett Parker iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk wrote:
As I understand it, from what I read, this is nothing more or less than Yet Another implementation of DKIM[0].
Aren't Yahoo still claiming they have software patents on DomainKeys and threatening to drag any users to Californian courts?
Probably - as with SPF before it, it's not going to work long term... the correct solution (as it always has been) is to get rid of the complete muppets that send spam.
Why not just use GPG extensively, make everyone sign their mail, and only accept mail that has a trust path to your key... that's almost as sane (and very obviously flawed).
I thought we were discussing GPG here, but I see it wasn't explicit.
Indeed it wasn't, hence the pointer to DKIM, which (in my opinion) is also pointless. All of the various systems have the same fundamental flaw, there's no reason that spammers *couldn't* use them, and they're actually more *likely* to implement them to get over the various barriers in place.
*sigh*.