Not that this is all that new a question, but I think it might be worthy
of more (and maybe different focus)...
When a message is used in a DKIM Replay Attack:
1. It originates from a domain name having good reputation
2. It passes quality checks from that sending domain
3. It goes to a collabo
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 11:10 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
> Two thoughts:
>
>1. If the substance of the message should fail a quality assessment,
>why does it pass at the outbound (sending) site?
>2. If the problem is reasonable content, but sent to many unintended
>(or, rather, undecl
On 8/29/2023 12:30 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
For (1), I presume the outbound site did not make a quality assessment
that identified the message as "likely to be replayed". Does this
reduce to the "don't sign spam" argument?
I have no idea what the current levels of outbound filtering are
Sent from my iPhone
> On 29 Aug 2023, at 20:54, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> On 8/29/2023 12:30 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> For (1), I presume the outbound site did not make a quality assessment that
>> identified the message as "likely to be replayed". Does this reduce to the
>> "don't s
On 8/29/2023 1:15 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
Many, many people sign up to receive content that is, by any objective
content-filtering standard, as spammy as an incredibly spammy thing.
Seriously, people sign up for things you would not believe.
Any attempt by senders to filter outbound emails bas
On 8/29/23 3:15 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
Any attempt by senders to filter outbound emails based solely on
content is going to have a lot of false negatives and positives,
wherever you decide to draw the line.
I find the idea of using different, probably less stringent, filtering
on outbound th
On 8/29/23 9:02 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
A possible way to think about how to approach this:
1. Use the mechanism for messages deemed spammy by the originating
platform, or for new users who do not yet have an established
quality record, or...
2. Add a header field that has seman
On 8/29/2023 7:46 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 8/29/23 9:02 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Why not re-use the existing DKIM solution, just with a different
domain / set of keys?
Because it does not provide the affirmative information that I am
postulating/guessing the originating platform can supply.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 30 Aug 2023, at 03:38, Grant Taylor
> wrote:
>
> On 8/29/23 3:15 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>> Any attempt by senders to filter outbound emails based solely on content is
>> going to have a lot of false negatives and positives, wherever you decide to
>> draw the line.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 8:11 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 8/29/2023 7:46 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> > On 8/29/23 9:02 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >
> > Why not re-use the existing DKIM solution, just with a different
> > domain / set of keys?
>
> Because it does not provide the affirmative informatio
> On 30 Aug 2023, at 06:35, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>
>
> This also presumes that operators currently develop reputation based on (d=,
> s=) pairs. Is that so? I thought it was mostly just the d= that matters.
That some major consumer mailbox providers use s= to track reputation is one
11 matches
Mail list logo
