Talk:DomainKeys Identified Mail: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==More seriously== | ==More seriously== | ||
The description confuses me a bit. Isn't [[ | The description confuses me a bit. Isn't [[DNS security]] a subset of [[public key infrastructure]], not an alternative? Yes, the primary purpose is to validate the domain information, but one can still get a certificate through DNSSEC, I thought. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:18, 12 October 2009
Don't mind me...
But every time I see this title, my brain initially processes it as "Donkey Identified Mail." Howard C. Berkowitz 17:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Careful there Howard, we're trying to be neutral. :>) This is one of those articles likely to bring some partisans to the discussion. The closer we get to specific methods, the more controversy we can expect. --David MacQuigg 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I actually don't know the first thing about this method. But let's think about Donkey Identification. Wouldn't it be an appropriate certification that something is indeed approved by the U.S. Democratic Party? Couldn't we have Elephant Identified Mail? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
More seriously
The description confuses me a bit. Isn't DNS security a subset of public key infrastructure, not an alternative? Yes, the primary purpose is to validate the domain information, but one can still get a certificate through DNSSEC, I thought. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)