Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Fwd: [Lurk] Another outside the "box" use case: DKIM

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 12:48:48 -0700

On 4/21/2016 11:50 AM, John Levine wrote:
> The reason DKIM doesn't have the LURK problem is that the key issuer
> directly controls the verification key with no intermediary doing
> certification.

The text I was commenting on cited an issue with handing out "my private 
key".  That DKIM might have other benefits is nice, and might be added 
benefits, they weren't the issue that was raised.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html