On 12/28/20 1:22 PM, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote:
Your example is in fact addressing part of the “sense” question: Why should you be getting all abuse reports for an IP when it’s shared and all you really should be getting is the stuff for your own domain you are responsible for.
I don't think so. I'm primarily a datacenter operator and commercial-only ISP and my AUP says no spamming. As the proactive type that prefers to prevent spamming instead of ignoring it for profit, I do like to know if anyone is emitting spam from any of our IP space. Feedback loops based on our IP ranges help with that goal, and provide effective evidence of AUP violations.
I can't do that with DKIM. Feedback loops are also faster than waiting for someone to email abuse@ after looking in whois, if anyone bothers to go that far. If my abuse@ is already in whois, then why should I not be allowed to request automated reporting of the same?
BTW: Some ESPs solve the “not practical” problem by double signing their mail with their own DKIM domain.
I can't double sign emails that are coming from IP space reassigned to customers. (And before someone says filter port 25 this is not residential or dynamic IP.)
But I also understand that other mail operators don't want to maintain a system that can work with IP-based reporting. My only point is that it's helpful to those of us that want to help prevent spam.
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
