On Jul 31, 2009, at 9:17 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> I was curious by Scott comment re SPF.
>
> Is there a class of spam that cannot get a DKIM signature?
>
> I would think botnets would be that class, as they usually infect
> computers and not sure they could DKIM sign as it would require them
I was curious by Scott comment re SPF.
Is there a class of spam that cannot get a DKIM signature?
I would think botnets would be that class, as they usually infect computers and
not sure they could DKIM sign as it would require them to set a DNS entry too.
Knowing that botnets are 70% of spam
Franck Martin wrote:
> Yes the reputation of the domain override things, but what happens when
> it is the first time a domain is seen? Does DKIM help or not?
Does the presence of a signature provide any objective data about the goodness
or badness of the signer?
If the claim is that it does
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 12:51:01 +1200 (FJT) Franck Martin
wrote:
>Yes the reputation of the domain override things, but what happens when it
is the first time a domain is seen? Does DKIM help or not?
>
It can't.
>Also, I'm thinking in terms of points like for spammassin. Seeing some
patterns in t
On Jul 31, 2009, at 5:51 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> Yes the reputation of the domain override things, but what happens
> when it is the first time a domain is seen? Does DKIM help or not?
If there's no DKIM, then there's not really any obvious domain to be
talking
about when it comes to repu
Yes the reputation of the domain override things, but what happens when it is
the first time a domain is seen? Does DKIM help or not?
Also, I'm thinking in terms of points like for spammassin. Seeing some patterns
in the email increase or lower the points. I don't think a whole reputation
judg
On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> Looking at DKIM adoption. I have seen statements that some mailers
> will do DKIM based reputation if available, but I have yet to see a
> statement as either:
> -an email not signed with DKIM will have its reputation lowered
> (less likel
Looking at DKIM adoption. I have seen statements that some mailers will do DKIM
based reputation if available, but I have yet to see a statement as either:
-an email not signed with DKIM will have its reputation lowered (less likely to
pass filters)
-an email signed with DKIM will have its repu
(This may be a duplicate, I have too many email addresses)
On Jul 31, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:19:43 -0400 Tony Hansen wrote:
>> I'm wondering if there is a need for a web interface at dkim.org that
>> would validate someone's _domainkey TXT record.
>>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 12:09 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Escaping things in key/ADSP records
>
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:19:43 -0400 Tony Hansen wrote:
>I'm wondering if there is a need for a web interface at dkim.org that
>would validate someone's _domainkey TXT record.
>
I'd say yes. It would provide a good way to isolate record specific issues
from other potential problems people are hav
Tony,
If you still have the records, can you count the number of records with
g=; ? That's used in an example in some of the DomainKey specs and
works for DK but means "match nothing" for DKIM.
-Jim
Tony Hansen wrote:
> Mark Martinec wrote:
> > John Levine wrote:
> >> It is certainly the kind
Mark Martinec wrote:
> John Levine wrote:
>> It is certainly the kind of bug that occurs in PHP scripts when the
>> programmer doesn't perfectly understand the quoting rules. It's
>> happened to me.
>
> I'm collecting a set of common mistakes breaking DKIM signatures.
Pulling up a message f
Barry Leiba wrote:
> (Removed SAAG from the cc list.)
>
>> Whats missing is possible a survey on why there is a market of
>> potential implementators who are on the fence, have not gave the "go
>> ahead" or are just plain leary about the whole thing, even among those
>> who have been involved si
14 matches
Mail list logo
