Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM reply mitigations: re-opening the DKIM working group

On Thursday, November 10, 2022 8:32:16 AM EST Steve Atkins wrote: > > On 10 Nov 2022, at 13:17, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:54 PM Laura Atkins > > wrote: In many cases, the reason the > > mail isn’t going out through the signing d

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM reply mitigations: re-opening the DKIM working group

On Thu 10/Nov/2022 14:32:16 +0100 Steve Atkins wrote: The other (more common?) case is that the original recipient is in the signed 822.To, while the new recipient is not in the To: or Cc: headers at all. While that’s just the same as old-school alias forwarding, and you might not be able to sp

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM reply mitigations: re-opening the DKIM working group

On Thursday, November 10, 2022 7:54:25 AM EST Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:42 PM Scott Kitterman > > wrote: > > I agree that we don't want too much detail in the charter about the > > technical > > nature of the problem, but I would like to understand it in more detail

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM reply mitigations: re-opening the DKIM working group

> On 10 Nov 2022, at 13:17, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:54 PM Laura Atkins > wrote: > In many cases, the reason the mail isn’t going out through the signing domain > is because the signing domain’s anti-spam heuristics are good eno

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM reply mitigations: re-opening the DKIM working group

> On 10 Nov 2022, at 13:24, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > [offlist] > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 1:21 PM Laura Atkins > wrote: > >> On 10 Nov 2022, at 13:17, Murray S. Kucherawy > > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:54 PM Lau

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM reply mitigations: re-opening the DKIM working group

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 1:24 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > [offlist] > > ... > Actually I didn't intend for it to be offlist, sorry for the confusing tag. -MSK ___ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM reply mitigations: re-opening the DKIM working group

[offlist] On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 1:21 PM Laura Atkins wrote: > > On 10 Nov 2022, at 13:17, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:54 PM Laura Atkins > wrote: > >> In many cases, the reason the mail isn’t going out through the signing >> domain is because the signing domain’

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM reply mitigations: re-opening the DKIM working group

> On 10 Nov 2022, at 13:17, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:54 PM Laura Atkins > wrote: > In many cases, the reason the mail isn’t going out through the signing domain > is because the signing domain’s anti-spam heuristics are good enou

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM reply mitigations: re-opening the DKIM working group

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:54 PM Laura Atkins wrote: > In many cases, the reason the mail isn’t going out through the signing > domain is because the signing domain’s anti-spam heuristics are good enough > that the sender couldn’t maintain an account there long enough to send out > any volume of

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM reply mitigations: re-opening the DKIM working group

> On 10 Nov 2022, at 12:42, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I agree that we don't want too much detail in the charter about the technical > nature of the problem, but I would like to understand it in more detail in > order to better assess the appropriateness of what is there. > > If a domain is

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM reply mitigations: re-opening the DKIM working group

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:42 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > I agree that we don't want too much detail in the charter about the > technical > nature of the problem, but I would like to understand it in more detail in > order to better assess the appropriateness of what is there. > > If a domain is

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM reply mitigations: re-opening the DKIM working group

I agree that we don't want too much detail in the charter about the technical nature of the problem, but I would like to understand it in more detail in order to better assess the appropriateness of what is there. If a domain is signing spam and their reputation suffers as a result, isn't that

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM reply mitigations: re-opening the DKIM working group

We could add a sentence or two that says we’re seeing increasing spam campaigns that use DKIM replay to get their spam sent out, taking advantage of — and subsequently damaging — the reputation of the domain that signed the original message. Do you think that would be useful? More detail than tha