J D Falk wrote:
> Jeff Macdonald wrote:
>
>
>> I'm a bit behind on this but:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 03:43:55PM -0500, J D Falk wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, that would be extremely helpful -- but DKIM's i= won't give
>>>
> it
>
>>> to us. (Unless you're assuming that these same b
Jeff Macdonald wrote:
> I'm a bit behind on this but:
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 03:43:55PM -0500, J D Falk wrote:
>> I agree, that would be extremely helpful -- but DKIM's i= won't give
it
>> to us. (Unless you're assuming that these same botnet operators will
>> allow themselves to be corrall
I'm a bit behind on this but:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 03:43:55PM -0500, J D Falk wrote:
I agree, that would be extremely helpful -- but DKIM's i= won't give it
to us. (Unless you're assuming that these same botnet operators will
allow themselves to be corralled into a single identifer, which cl
On Nov 29, 2007, at 12:43 PM, J D Falk wrote:
Doug Otis opined:
That's a ton of extra work, for very little benefit (from an anti-
spam point of view.)
No. With there being so many bots, it is common to find a large
domain sending a fairly high level of spam. It would be helpful if
the
Doug Otis opined:
>> That's a ton of extra work, for very little benefit (from an anti-
>> spam point of view.)
>
> No. With there being so many bots, it is common to find a large domain
> sending a fairly high level of spam. It would be helpful if there
> were a means to mitigate spam from suc
On Thursday 29 November 2007 15:13, Douglas Otis wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007, at 12:00 PM, J D Falk wrote:
> > Jon Callas wisely cautioned:
> >
> > It also strikes me as odd to assume that a receiver/verifier WANTS
> > to track individual users (or user-equivalent entities) within the
> > responsible
On Nov 29, 2007, at 12:00 PM, J D Falk wrote:
Jon Callas wisely cautioned:
It also strikes me as odd to assume that a receiver/verifier WANTS
to track individual users (or user-equivalent entities) within the
responsible domain.
Agreed.
That's a ton of extra work, for very little benef
Jon Callas wisely cautioned:
> Nonetheless, to step past that and assert that there must be user-
level
> tracking in DKIM whatever the mechanism, or even that user- level
> tracking should be part of best practices is stepping too far. Spam
> fighting is not so important that we should erode priv
