> On 30 Aug 2023, at 06:35, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>
>
> This also presumes that operators currently develop reputation based on (d=,
> s=) pairs. Is that so? I thought it was mostly just the d= that matters.
That some major consumer mailbox providers use s= to track reputation is one
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 8:11 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 8/29/2023 7:46 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> > On 8/29/23 9:02 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >
> > Why not re-use the existing DKIM solution, just with a different
> > domain / set of keys?
>
> Because it does not provide the affirmative informatio
Sent from my iPhone
> On 30 Aug 2023, at 03:38, Grant Taylor
> wrote:
>
> On 8/29/23 3:15 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>> Any attempt by senders to filter outbound emails based solely on content is
>> going to have a lot of false negatives and positives, wherever you decide to
>> draw the line.
On 8/29/2023 7:46 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 8/29/23 9:02 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Why not re-use the existing DKIM solution, just with a different
domain / set of keys?
Because it does not provide the affirmative information that I am
postulating/guessing the originating platform can supply.
On 8/29/23 9:02 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
A possible way to think about how to approach this:
1. Use the mechanism for messages deemed spammy by the originating
platform, or for new users who do not yet have an established
quality record, or...
2. Add a header field that has seman
On 8/29/23 3:15 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
Any attempt by senders to filter outbound emails based solely on
content is going to have a lot of false negatives and positives,
wherever you decide to draw the line.
I find the idea of using different, probably less stringent, filtering
on outbound th
On 8/29/2023 1:15 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
Many, many people sign up to receive content that is, by any objective
content-filtering standard, as spammy as an incredibly spammy thing.
Seriously, people sign up for things you would not believe.
Any attempt by senders to filter outbound emails bas
Sent from my iPhone
> On 29 Aug 2023, at 20:54, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> On 8/29/2023 12:30 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> For (1), I presume the outbound site did not make a quality assessment that
>> identified the message as "likely to be replayed". Does this reduce to the
>> "don't s
On 8/29/2023 12:30 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
For (1), I presume the outbound site did not make a quality assessment
that identified the message as "likely to be replayed". Does this
reduce to the "don't sign spam" argument?
I have no idea what the current levels of outbound filtering are
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 11:10 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
> Two thoughts:
>
>1. If the substance of the message should fail a quality assessment,
>why does it pass at the outbound (sending) site?
>2. If the problem is reasonable content, but sent to many unintended
>(or, rather, undecl
Not that this is all that new a question, but I think it might be worthy
of more (and maybe different focus)...
When a message is used in a DKIM Replay Attack:
1. It originates from a domain name having good reputation
2. It passes quality checks from that sending domain
3. It goes to a collabo
11 matches
Mail list logo
