Sent from my iPhone
> On 29 Aug 2023, at 20:54, Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > > On 8/29/2023 12:30 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> For (1), I presume the outbound site did not make a quality assessment that >> identified the message as "likely to be replayed". Does this reduce to the >> "don't sign spam" argument? > > I have no idea what the current levels of outbound filtering are, among major > platforms. If it ain't already very high, yeah, seems like it should be and > that this is an added incentive why. Many, many people sign up to receive content that is, by any objective content-filtering standard, as spammy as an incredibly spammy thing. Seriously, people sign up for things you would not believe. Any attempt by senders to filter outbound emails based solely on content is going to have a lot of false negatives and positives, wherever you decide to draw the line. Inbound content-based filtering is much easier to get right - not least because the fallback is “just deliver it to the spam folder” - and we’re not great at that. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
