Re: [Ietf-dkim] Misuse of antiforgery protocols

2022-12-13 Thread Michael Thomas
On 12/13/22 6:35 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: This tactic appears to me to have three problems: (1) negative reputations are of little value to receivers, because attackers can easily shed them; (2) if I have to remember everything with a negative reputation for some undetermined period of

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Misuse of antiforgery protocols

2022-12-13 Thread Michael Thomas
On 12/13/22 9:06 AM, Evan Burke wrote: On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jim Fenton wrote: This is interesting and surprised me a bit. I had expected that the senders of the messages being replayed were the large consumer mailbox providers, because it would be easy for spammers to

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Misuse of antiforgery protocols

2022-12-13 Thread Evan Burke
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 8:45 AM Jim Fenton wrote: > This is interesting and surprised me a bit. I had expected that the > senders of the messages being replayed were the large consumer mailbox > providers, because it would be easy for spammers to hide in a large crowd > and because the reputation

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Misuse of antiforgery protocols

2022-12-13 Thread Jim Fenton
On 12 Dec 2022, at 12:11, Evan Burke wrote: > These attacks were very narrowly targeted; the vast majority of DKIM replay > spam this year has been sent to just a few of the largest consumer mailbox > providers. In that context, lack of awareness of the problem is a poor > argument against trying

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Misuse of antiforgery protocols

2022-12-13 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 2:54 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Perhaps they could devise better methods than asking _accountable? (Y/N)_ > on a > questionnaire. Linking to bank accounts is an example. > Would you link a free email account to your bank account for any reason? I don't think I would.

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Misuse of antiforgery protocols

2022-12-13 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Mon 12/Dec/2022 15:50:44 +0100 Laura Atkins wrote: On 12 Dec 2022, at 14:34, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 1:13 AM Alessandro Vesely mailto:ves...@tana.it>> wrote: The alternative is to say: Well, if you can't make at least one of those two quantities bulletproof, then

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Taking Responsibility

2022-12-13 Thread Steve Atkins
> On 13 Dec 2022, at 06:02, Evan Burke wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 8:49 PM Murray S. Kucherawy > wrote: > At a recent meeting where I heard some mass senders talk about this problem, > the use of "x=" as a mitigation technique was raised. I was curious t