Cc: IETF DMARC WG
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] AutoForward problems -
Change log benefits to mailing lists
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 5:09 AM Doug Foster wrote:
> However, I disagree about negative reputation.Content filtering alone
> is insufficient and even more error prone. In the last
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:30 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 5:09 AM Doug Foster 40bayviewphysicians@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> However, I disagree about negative reputation.Content filtering alone
>> is insufficient and even more error prone. In the last year,
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 5:09 AM Doug Foster wrote:
> However, I disagree about negative reputation.Content filtering alone
> is insufficient and even more error prone. In the last year, I have had
> spam campaigns about LED lighting, stand-up desks, touchless thermometers,
> and knife
: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:superu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2020 4:30 PM
To: Doug Foster
Cc: IETF DMARC WG
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] AutoForward problems - Change log benefits to mailing
lists
Historically, I've found that a negative source reputation is easy to dodge.
It's
In article ,
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>Another way to look at this: DKIM (and I believe SPF) only really tells you
>something interesting when it passes. That means (for DKIM) the content
>was unmodified, and the signature is validated by a key that is verifiably
>present in some domain's DNS
re the ones that are least likely to add an exotic new feature like
> dual authorship detection. So I reluctantly conclude that there is no
> significant opportunity for using this approach on the "spam filter with
> auto-forward" problem.
>
> - But is there is a group of
t; problem.
- But is there is a group of mailing lists that only need these four
capabilities? I was hoping so.
DF
From: Alessandro Vesely
Sent: 9/5/20 5:36 AM
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] AutoForward problems - Change log benefits
On Fri 04/Sep/2020 04:05:24 +0200 Douglas E. Foster wrote:
Of the three types of content changes that I proposed, the easiest to specify
and get implemented is the first type, where the mediator only adds content,
adds a change log indicating the additions, and signs the result. I am hoping
Sent: 9/3/20 6:44 PM
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] AutoForward problems
In article <767e2dcc-e87c-1e90-2f86-486e51a3c...@wisc.edu>,
Jesse Thompson wrote:
>I realize that John's message in the other thread probably wasn't referencing
>auto-forwarding, but I think his poi
In article <767e2dcc-e87c-1e90-2f86-486e51a3c...@wisc.edu>,
Jesse Thompson wrote:
>I realize that John's message in the other thread probably wasn't referencing
>auto-forwarding, but I think his point
>dovetails to the auto-forwarding issue:
>
>> As always, as I hope we all remember DMARC
tching side's UI for handling re-authentication, so it's not a slam dunk
alternative to SMTP forwarding.
Jesse
>
> Doug Foster
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jesse Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2020 8:42
03, 2020 8:42 AM
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] AutoForward problems
On 9/2/20 6:33 AM, Douglas E. Foster wrote:
> For mailing lists, we have pushed the limits of authorization. But there
is another class of problems where sender authorization is not feasible:
mail which is a
On 9/2/20 6:33 AM, Douglas E. Foster wrote:
> For mailing lists, we have pushed the limits of authorization. But there is
> another class of problems where sender authorization is not feasible: mail
> which is auto-forwarded after a spam-filter has made content-altering changes.
Yes, this
For mailing lists, we have pushed the limits of authorization. But there is
another class of problems where sender authorization is not feasible: mail
which is auto-forwarded after a spam-filter has made content-altering changes.
In some respects, the problem is similar to a mailing list.
14 matches
Mail list logo
