> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 7:03 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] No signatures, bad signatures, cousin domains > > Heuristic based systems like SA are subject to the phases of the moon > with respect to what they find valuable and for how long. If they find > it useful to educe something from DKIM or lack thereof, more power to > them. Heck, if they just used the signature header pattern to determine > spam from ham for different senders, that would be cool too. This is not > in conflict from the statement that _cryptographically_ a broken signature > is no different than a missing signature. SA and its ilk just don't operate > on the plane of mathematical provables is all; nothing wrong with that.
My use of Spamassassin for correlation of DKIM verification versus message classification is really only a proof-of-concept thing. Certainly connecting this stuff to a much more robust spam feedback system like the one Cloudmark has would produce far better results. It's somewhere on my to-do list. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
