Re: users with vanity domains

On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 05:02:27PM -0400, Raymond S Brand wrote:
> 
> It's also why I created the ``provider delegations'' in the MVP proposal.
> But the argument that Alan seems to be using in this thread is that mobile
> users want to be able to send from anywhere AND protect their domain name
> from forgery at the same time. None of the RMX/DMP/SPF/Vixie/DRIP/MVP
> proposals achieve that. That WILL require cryptographically signed messages
> to achieve, and I think that's where email is going in the long term due
> to the forgery issues.

Wrong. RMX explicitely addresses and solves the problem of these
mobile users since the 02 version of the RMX draft. 

The latest version (submitted yesterday) also covers cryptographically
signed messages (currently experimental) and challenge response
authentication, but still has a subchapter why cryptography can't
solve the problem in common.

But this is one of the main reasons why I do believe that we need 
a client library with some intelligence and cannot use just primitive
DNS querying through rewriting rules.


regards
Hadmut