What benefit does the anchoring give over just the signing part? Surely the signature is enough to prove that the email is from the expected sender? I feel like this is just an attempt to add Blockchain to an existing system for no benefit to the user.<p>EDIT: After looking around a bit more, the product appears to be your standard CRM tool (similar to Streak) but with "Blockchain" added to make it look different (but without adding any value).
Big red flag:<p>> The hash of an email is computed using the SHA2-512 hashing algorithm and signed with our own 512-bit private RSA key.<p>Why even bother signing it if your key is that weak?<p>Furthermore, they sign every message individually with the same key. This does not make sense to me: why not just sign the root of the Merkle tree?<p>Other fun stuff:<p>- They both supply email tracking, and protect your privacy by blocking email tracking...<p>- It doesn't prove that the email has been sent, it just proves that it has been submitted to Gmelius for signing.
Yes, because the killer feature missing from SPF + DKIM + DMARC is "blockchain". <rolls eyes><p>Every time I see some new "<reliable tech>, now with Blockchain!" announcement, it just convinces me a little bit more that "blockchain" is still a solution (that very few actually need) searching for a viable problem.