nanog mailing list archives
Re: gmail dropping mesages
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2 () dcrocker net>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:21:02 -0700
On 4/22/2011 4:24 PM, Lynda wrote:
Nearly all of the spam I see is DKIM signed. It just makes messages bigger. I'd just as soon our volunteers spend their times on other things, myself.
In the off-chance you are assuming that the presence of a DKIM signature is supposed to mean something about the quality of a message, please note that it isn't. It is only meant to supply a reliable, valid identifier, with which assessments can then be made. That assessment step is where the fun happens. See: <http://dkim.org/specs/draft-ietf-dkim-deployment-11.html> For reference, spammers are typically early adopters of newly security standardized mechanisms, in the (demonstrably valid) belief that some folk confuse identification with quality assurance. In particular, the DKIM d= identifier is primarily helpful for avoiding false positives. That is, it is for an assessment process targeting signers you trust, rather more than for targeting those you don't. If you don't care about the trust side of the filtering equation, I suspect DKIM will not be all that helpful for you. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Current thread:
- Re: gmail dropping mesages, (continued)
- Re: gmail dropping mesages Bill Blackford (Apr 21)
- Re: gmail dropping mesages Franck Martin (Apr 22)
- Re: gmail dropping mesages Alex Brooks (Apr 22)
- Re: gmail dropping mesages Franck Martin (Apr 22)
- Re: gmail dropping mesages Lynda (Apr 22)
- Re: gmail dropping mesages Franck Martin (Apr 23)
- Re: gmail dropping mesages Jeff Mitchell (Apr 25)
- Re: gmail dropping mesages J.D. Falk (Apr 26)
- Re: gmail dropping mesages Michael Thomas (Apr 26)
- Re: gmail dropping mesages Jeff Mitchell (Apr 27)
- Re: gmail dropping mesages Alex Brooks (Apr 22)
- Re: gmail dropping mesages Dave CROCKER (Apr 25)