On 2/12/23 1:47 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 11:19 AM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
It's certainly possible to collect data that might correlate
something like "Subject signed vs. not signed" with a spam score,
and that could feed in to a best practices document. I don't
know who might be up for investing the time into such a survey,
however. OpenDKIM used to collect such summaries from volunteer
participants; I can see if the data sitting around in those
tables had enough information for such a survey, but it almost
certainly won't be current data.
What I'm starting to think is that if we can collect that into the
problem statement that may well be all we need to do if we
determine that there is no there there in the solution space
(given the solutions on offer now, that seems to be the case).
Also: we can't write a BCP if we can't know what they may be
because of the proprietary nature of the filtering/reputation. If
the clues we find are well known to them then, well, it's sort of
like what are we supposed to do?
I'm doubtful, but I'll see if the data I still have can reveal this
sort of correlation given the participants I had and the data they
submitted.
If there are any large operators that could run such a survey, I'm
sure the WG would appreciate it.
And of course if operators start enforcing it fairly uniformly, spammers
will just pursue other mechanisms. That's yet another reason why there
probably isn't much we can do long term.
FWIW, I've started collecting some of the clues I've seen along the way
here. If I get enough of them, I'll write a short I-D about it.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
