Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3.

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 07 February 2010 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CED93A6DBE for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 12:05:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.575
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zm3beqAcxSmv for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 12:05:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3809F3A692C for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 12:05:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.43] (adsl-68-122-70-87.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.70.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o17K6Ze2020091 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 7 Feb 2010 12:06:40 -0800
Message-ID: <4B6F1D4B.9080807@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:06:35 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <20100207195019.53820.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100207195019.53820.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/10363/Sun Feb 7 05:50:54 2010 on sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:06:40 -0800 (PST)
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3.
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:05:42 -0000

On 2/7/2010 11:50 AM, John Levine wrote:
> Since the reports all contain a message that was supposed to be
> delivered by the system to which it was returned, a straightforward
> way to recognize real reports would be to check the enclosed message
> to see if it looked like something it had delivered.  That seems much
> more robust against both malicious forgery, and plain old mistakes
> where an MUA picks up mail from two different places and sends the
> report to the wrong one.


encoding per-channel information in a per-message package is a mismatch that 
could be problematic.

most seriously is the possibility of trust boundary issues that has already been 
raised.  i had a further thought on that issue, which is about unintentional 
disclosure through forwarding.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net