> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 6:40 AM
> To: Ian Eiloart
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM Scouts, was 8bit downgrades
>
> Mailing lists have wor
On May 26, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
>> On Behalf Of John R. Levine
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 6:40 AM
>> To: Ian Eiloart
>> Cc: DKIM List
>> Subject: Re: [ietf-
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 12:21 PM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> In my experience wit
On May 26, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>
>
> On 5/26/11 12:21 , "Steve Atkins" wrote:
>>
>> In my experience with traditional discussion MLMs (which is the situation
>> we're talking about) if I trust the MLM, I generally don't care about who
>> the participants are.
>
> True, but
Perhaps an MLM's reputation is pulled up or down as the average of those of its
participants, so if the MLM can attract "good" senders, suddenly entire threads
start getting through. But that would only be possible with signature survival.
In my experience, the reputation of the list is unrel
> -Original Message-
> From: John R. Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 1:29 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> If anyone's claiming that contributors'
On 5/26/2011 1:29 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> In my experience, the reputation of the list is unrelated to the reputation of
> its participants.
Given how little DKIM-related reputation work has been done, deployed and
heavily used so far, perhaps we should all be a bit cautious about taking
On 5/26/11 12:21 , "Steve Atkins" wrote:
>
>On May 26, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org
>>>[mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 6:40 AM
>>> To:
Steve Atkins wrote:
> In my experience with traditional discussion MLMs (which is the situation
> we're talking about) if I trust the MLM, I generally don't care about
> who the participants are.
If by traditional, you mean the members are vetted with subscription
and confirmation, then this te
On May 26, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
> Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>> In my experience with traditional discussion MLMs (which is the situation
>> we're talking about) if I trust the MLM, I generally don't care about
>> who the participants are.
>
> If by traditional, you mean the memb
Steve Atkins wrote:
> On May 26, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
>> If by traditional, you mean the members are vetted with subscription
>> and confirmation, then this tends to be true. But when not, when the
>> list or any group forum is anonymous in nature, history has told us
>> its get
Franck Martin wrote:
>
> So the receiving MTA, sees messages with List-id: headers in direction to
> your mailbox. What it shall do? The Receiving MTA does not usually know
> you have subscribed to the mailing list...
>
> 1) as Murray says, It can infer it has to deliver (or not) the email based
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Franck Martin
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 1:13 PM
> To: Steve Atkins; DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> side n
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 2:10 PM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> In that case the reput
On 5/26/11 14:48 , "Hector Santos" wrote:
>Franck Martin wrote:
>>
>> So the receiving MTA, sees messages with List-id: headers in direction
>>to
>> your mailbox. What it shall do? The Receiving MTA does not usually know
>> you have subscribed to the mailing list...
>>
>> 1) as Murray says, I
On May 26, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
>> On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 2:10 PM
>> To: DKIM List
>&g
>Let's say I route all traffic from list X to its own separate
>mailbox, but I also want my MUA to flag for special attention mail
>sent to that list by people I hold in high regard, for example, and I
>want that to be based on their accumulated reputations. I either
>have to base that on somethin
>> In my experience, the reputation of the list is unrelated to the
>> reputation of its participants.
>Given how little DKIM-related reputation work has been done, deployed and
>heavily used so far, perhaps we should all be a bit cautious about taking
>existing practices and treating them as d
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:20 PM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> That's relying on
First, lets tune down the "40" years thing. What email list system was
around in 1970? Its more like 26 years with ListServ (circa 1985)
among the first and leading the way for the rest of the list server
developers.
There was, of course, list via X.400 but it was most of a "CC" like
mailing l
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> Franck Martin
>> side note: do
>> mail receivers treat mailing list differently than any other emails?
>
> That's a local policy question. Personally, I don't know of any
> that do.
Almost all SMTP receivers that have an acceptable table and if the
operator has a
On May 26, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
>> On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:20 PM
>> To: DKIM List
>&g
Franck Martin wrote:
>> it will checked as an normal user (alias) and accepted.
>
> I meant as a receiver of mailing list email, does your MTA do something
> special when it sees the List-id: header?
Yes. Some of my RBM (Rule Based Messaging) scripts at the DATA level
check for specific LIST-ID
On Thursday, May 26, 2011 03:21:19 PM Steve Atkins wrote:
> If the reputation of the MLM is poor enough that mail from it is not being
> delivered, trumping that with an authors reputation may get individual
> emails delivered - but not threads, so it doesn't really improve the value
> provided to
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:47 PM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> > It's not vapou
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:07 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> On T
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:15 PM
> To: Scott Kitterman; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatu
gt; To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
> >
> > On Thursday, May 26, 2011 03:21:19 PM Steve Atkins wrote:
> > > If the reputation of the MLM is poor enough that mail from it is not
> > > being
> > > delivered, tru
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> The other piece of the equation is how often do I see abusive mail
> purporting to be from this domain with no signature while mail from this
> domain that is normally signed has no significant problems.
That's an exclusive reject opportunistic question.
In othe
BTW, these are our May Rejections stats:
http://www.winserver.com/public/antispam/stats/stats-2011-May.wct
http://www.winserver.com/public/spamstats.wct (since 2003)
The LMAP column is SPF and its been should a high +6% and I say high
because only this year only has it been that high. Be
To: Scott Kitterman; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
> >
> > The other piece of the equation is how often do I see abusive mail
> > purporting to be from this domain with no signature while mail from this
> > domain that is no
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 5:36 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> My exper
m@mipassoc.org
> > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
> >
> > My experience is it varies a lot by domain. Some domains are phishing
> > targets and some aren't. If it's not a phishing target DKIM doesn't
> > matter much either way. I
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> My experience is it varies a lot by domain. Some domains are phishing
>> targets
>> and some aren't. If it's not a phishing target DKIM doesn't matter much
>> either way. If it is, then if they can manage to sign all their outbound
>> mai
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:36 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> On T
On 26/May/11 23:52, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> From: On Behalf Of Franck Martin
>
>> 2) do we need a mechanism to alert the receiving MTA that you have
>> subscribed to a mailing list, and all messages should pass through?
Yes, desperately.
> Certainly a possible feature, but it seems like it
>>> 2) do we need a mechanism to alert the receiving MTA that you have
>>> subscribed to a mailing list, and all messages should pass through?
>
> Yes, desperately.
>
>> Certainly a possible feature, but it seems like it won't scale very well.
>
> Why not?
If I were a spammer, I would tell the vic
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 9:08 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> > C
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 10:44 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
>
> This sou
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> Alessandro Vesely
>> Why not? Of course, having a copy of each subscription record would
>> roughly double the database, globally. "Twice" is scalable, though.
>
> An automated system to monitor mail flows to figure out lists to
> which users have subscribed or un
John R. Levine wrote:
> These days most subscriptions are entered on a web page, and if you're
> lucky the mailer will send a confirmation message with a URL that sends
> the subscriber back to the web page. Where's the MTA going to get the
> subscriber info?
See below
> The challenges in d
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>
>
> Remember, it's not static, it's dynamic. What was a non-phished domain
> yesterday could be a phished domain today or tomorrow. DKIM isn't a
> magic bullet, it's one more tool in the toolbox. I've found that in
> combination with SPF it works very nicely on d
; target that includes the address you directed replies to.
Here we go, the MTA automation is possible.
---- Reject Message: Cut here
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 12:56:41 -0700
From: asrg-ow...@irtf.org
To: hsan...@isdg.net
You are n
Hector Santos wrote:
> MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>>
>> Remember, it's not static, it's dynamic. What was a non-phished domain
>> yesterday could be a phished domain today or tomorrow. DKIM isn't a
>> magic bullet, it's one more tool in the toolbox. I've found that in
>> combination with SPF i
On 26 May 2011, at 23:19, Steve Atkins wrote:
> That's relying on an awful lot of vaporware in the MUA, orthogonal to any
> sort of authentication. I don't think any MUAs really track sender reputation
> in any way[1].
Certainly Outlook with Exchange does. If you mark a message as spam, then
45 matches
Mail list logo
