Al Iverson wrote: > My underlying point is that I need to understand more about how > phishers, once locked out of use of bigbank.com due to DKIM+ADSP, can > best be persuaded to avoid use of account.info.bigbank.com, or any > other subdomain that they've thought of, that I haven't.
Al, I think you have phrased a very useful question. But I also think it highlights a problem in how we've been pursuing things. In all likelihood, we can assume that phishers will, in fact, try to use sub-domains. I believe the real question is not the one you put forward but rather: How will it benefit phishers to use arbitrary sub-domains? How, exactly? 1. What is the scenario on the receive side that will make this beneficial? 2. What is the basis for believing that this scenario will, in fact, occur? So the question is about receive-side, not send-side. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html