Erwan David wrote:
> A key is nothing without a way to add a trusted relation between this
> key and the entity you want to authenticate. So I do not think those
> "solutions" are worthwile. Either you accept mail only from people you
> know, or you accept mail only from people who paid some establ
Sean C. wrote:
[snip]
> This would not be the end-all be-all of anti-spam tools. It would just be a
> method to authenticate mail as really originating from a particular domain.
> You
> would still use other tools (eg SpamAssassin, Norton, etc.) to figure out if
> the
> sender is a known spammer/
>Neil Williams writes:
>How do you guarantee that From: cannot be spoofed - it sounds like you are
>delegating that to the individual ISP / domain holder. I'm concerned that
the
>domain is too blunt as an instrument against spam and that it will remain
>easy to send spam from: aol.com and hotmail.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Radu Hociung wrote:
[snip]
> That's why I am asking the question: could PGP cope if all, or a
> significant proportion of all domains were to enable some kind of email
> transport authentication?
I don't see any connection. PGP i
> - Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
> Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 10:15:35 +0100
> From: Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Keyservers and the future
> To: gnupg-users@gnupg.
On Thursday 19 May 2005 8:15 pm, Radu Hociung wrote:
> Depending on proposal, email authentication would require between 1
> key/domain owner
Is that a completely different key to another domain used by the same owner?
I've got many domains but I only want one main key.
If someone trusts codehel
Bill Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 18:29:30 -0400
> Radu Hociung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>The object of trust, however, is a key. Without a key there isn't much
>>to be trusted. The question is ... is the PGP architecture suited to a
>>load of hundreds of millions of keys, or even
On Thu, 19 May 2005 18:29:30 -0400
Radu Hociung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The object of trust, however, is a key. Without a key there isn't much
> to be trusted. The question is ... is the PGP architecture suited to a
> load of hundreds of millions of keys, or even billions?
>
> Are CA's and X
Erwan David wrote:
> A key is nothing without a way to add a trusted relation between this
> key and the entity you want to authenticate. So I do not think those
> "solutions" are worthwile. Either you accept mail only from people
> you know, or you accept mail only from people who paid some
> es
Le 19/05/05 21:15, Radu Hociung a écrit:
Hello all,
I'm researching email authentication, and it looks like there is some
promise in using cryptographic signatures. Currently there are hundreds
of millions of domain names, and tens of millions of domain name owners.
Depending on proposal, email aut
Hello all,
I'm researching email authentication, and it looks like there is some
promise in using cryptographic signatures. Currently there are hundreds
of millions of domain names, and tens of millions of domain name owners.
Depending on proposal, email authentication would require between 1
key
11 matches
Mail list logo
