In examples we've seen, the mail is delivered to a host and immediately
(seconds) picked up by the spammers botnet and millions of copies sent.
Short of charging an exorbitant amount of money per message sent, I don't
see how any service can prevent sending a single spam message with 100%
accuracy
What's the actual damage here? Does, say, gmail.com's reputation suffer
when it signs spam that then gets replayed?
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
> In examples we've seen, the mail is delivered to a host and immediately
> (seconds) picked up by the spammers botnet and mil
Also realize that this isn't "Gmail shouldn't sign spam", it's everyone who
normally has a good reputation needs to not sign spam, this is a way to
steal reputation from any service allowing you to choose your own message,
and can be used against any mail receiver.
That said, I think this proposal
Also realize that this isn't "Gmail shouldn't sign spam", it's everyone who
normally has a good reputation needs to not sign spam, this is a way to
steal reputation from any service allowing you to choose your own message,
and can be used against any mail receiver.
Just wondering, roughly when w
On Nov 21, 2016 6:30 PM, "John R. Levine" wrote:
Also realize that this isn't "Gmail shouldn't sign spam", it's everyone who
> normally has a good reputation needs to not sign spam, this is a way to
> steal reputation from any service allowing you to choose your own message,
> and can be used aga
Well, besides the obvious damage of phishing/spam mails that may make it
through filters because of this, yes, this can also be used to damage the
reputation of senders.
Gmail can probably weather the reputation issue, since we're a large high
volume service, and antispam folks would have to mitig
