On Sat 27/Aug/2022 00:54:47 +0200 Brandon Long wrote:
There are certainly plenty of people who didn't read the spec and
wrongly assume that a failed signature means something is wrong.
I think there can be some subtle differences between "a failed signature
means something is wrong" and
"a message without authentication has a higher chance of being spam"
It was observed several times that spammers are quicker to adopt new
authentication techniques than classical mailbox providers. Although some
hopeless spam is not authenticated at all, I'd expect that spam with a
broken signature be restricted to rookies. Slavko's evidence seems to agree.
From here to inferring a honest attempt, and thereby non-junk status, from
failed signatures...
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
