4 ms·

DKIM is essentially signing outgoing e-mail at the server-level. Receiving MTAs are supposed to verify the signature using the public key available through

DKIM is essentially signing outgoing e-mail at the server-level. Receiving MTAs are supposed to verify the signature using the public key available through DNS. I can't find any examples now, but I swear I've seen gmail say "Verified Sender" or something to that extent on some random messages I've received before. I don't know if that was due to domain keys or something else.. This would still only be signing; I agree it'd be better if e-mail was more commonly encrypted.

rubyfan 12y ago
Yeah, I mean mua based message encryption is totally doable from sender to receiver but apparently too confusing, ie. GPG/PGP. I kinda buy that as a UX problem if I assume most people are not technical enough to understand how PKI works. mta transfer encryption probably needs more uptake and plugging of simple degradation attacks that cause transfers to flow unencrypted - in my opinion having providers do this for us is a losing battle. But considering S/MIME is likely the lowest acceptable form of email authenticity, why don't we have an interest in progressing the adoption of this technology?