On 8/15/2014 10:27 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote: > Am 15.08.2014 um 16:26 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail: >> On 8/15/2014 2:30 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote: >>> Question: Would it make sense to have rules based on dnssec / dane >>> records exist for a maildomain ? >>> >> A) rules have to be used for things that indicate ham or spaminess >> B) you can only automate something you have done manually >> >> So have you looked at this anecdotally and believe there is an >> indication of ham/spaminess from checking these records? >> >> Regards, >> KAM > It was just question, i have no preference to this yet, > > perhaps thinkable: > > tag domains with dane smtp record for hamness, cause its not wide > provided yet and identify it as advanced tec skill which results in > rare send spam too >
I think detecting dane smtp is a good thing as it gives another metric to test on. I don't think it says anything directly about ham/spam, but may be useful in macros. DKIM/SPF was widely adopted by spammers fairly early after portions of the tech community talked about whitelisting authenticated mail. You might remember one early point when a significant portion of the early-adopters were spammers and legit sites hadn't caught up yet. The same will happen with dane as usage expands -- some clever spam-support tech will develop a tool to easily mass-configure dane for throwaway domains. This isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself, but it means that the mere presence of dane can't determine ham/spam. -- Noel Jones
