On 2017 Feb 12, 03:00, Benny Pedersen wrote: > >In the post-Snowden era, cryptographically signing ALL is the way to > >go. > >Remember, NSA not only "spies", it also "impersonates" when it needs to > >do so (if it can do it). So yes, it makes sense for a mailing list to > >DKIM sign the posts it sends to its subscribers. > > no, dkim is not pgp
I don't see how your assertion is related to my comment. DKIM does certify that a message with a valid signature has: --authenticity (from where it comes, as control of the DNS of the sending domain is needed). --integrity (that the message has not been altered or mutilated). PGP is end-to-end, DKIM is not end-to-end, but MTA-to-MTA. I never said DKIM was end-to-end. Regards, -- Josh Good
