[wellylug] Re: CA-CERT Assurance
Simon Anderson
oob at wildstar.net
Fri Jun 4 13:58:41 NZST 2004
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Sam Cannell wrote:
> > I was referring to the signal/noise ratio of email, not of posts to this
> > list.
>
> Ah, now I see what you mean. Your post didn't make it very clear.
I think it was clear enough, but didn't fit with your stop energy agenda.
http://www.userland.com/whatIsStopEnergy
> I agree, spam and viruses *are* on the increase. Even so, I don't think
> that using certificates is the best solution.
In terms of the specific functionality of email spam/virii, perhaps not
but it certainly assists and doesn't preclude the use of other solutions
taiolered to this specific area.
Not to mention the core benefit of privacy/security.
> Personally, I like Microsoft's DNS caller-id system as a solution for
> spam. It requires no changes to existing protocols - it works alongside
> standard SMTP and nothing forces you to test the validity.
That would be SPF, a project recently E&E'd by MS.
> I'm not criticising you *or* your offer, only the wording of the first
> email.
I've re-read it and bounced it off a number of people. I don't believe
that "pushy" is a reasonable interpretation. I do believe however that
your position is representative of your LUG, so I'll shut up about
CA-Cert.
-Simon.
More information about the wellylug
mailing list