On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 8:09 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> I've always thought that the likelihood of a protocol level solution for > this issue is pretty close to zero if not zero. The various proposed > solutions in the problem draft haven't given me any reason to dissuade > me of that notion. > > That said, I think that we might be able to catalog some clues that > something is suspicious which taken with many other clues can be used to > by a receiver to make an ultimate decision of spamminess. A good example > is the unsigned To: and Subject: lines. Even if it's strictly allowed by > the spec, that doesn't mean it's not suspect. It could be really useful > to collect this clues as input signals to a larger preponderance of > evidence. > Authentication-Results already noted the idea that a signature, even a valid one, might still be considered not acceptable to the verifier and reported differently for one reason or another. An unsigned Subject was the classic example. Dealing with this in A-R nicely removes it from being dealt with at the protocol level, where I would argue this sort of logic doesn't belong. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
