Re: [Asrg] RFC5451 Re: who gets the report, was We really don't need

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Tue, 09 February 2010 11:51 UTC

Return-Path: <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
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 533E63A735F for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 03:51:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.593
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Di94FQN0-ykZ for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 03:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk (sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.88]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A52A3A7361 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 03:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.135.133]:49407) by sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KXKP0K-000E12-8L for asrg@irtf.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:53:08 +0000
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:52:32 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <2E34570FC4E61E0A7E857EBF@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4B7070AF.2050304@nortel.com>
References: <20100208153359.56374.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <20100208164237.389722425C@panix5.panix.com> <4B704FFC.8040306@tana.it> <4B7059C9.2060102@nortel.com> <BB012BD379D7B046ABE1472D8093C61C01C3C452A4@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <4B7070AF.2050304@nortel.com>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01p+Gk/hBCEmPoTvhgEwcaVhdxDVnFWAoHHEw=; token_authority=support@its.sussex.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
Subject: Re: [Asrg] RFC5451 Re: who gets the report, was We really don't need
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: 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: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:51:28 -0000

--On 8 February 2010 15:14:39 -0500 Chris Lewis <clewis@nortel.com> wrote:

>> Are you talking about an internal destination for spam reports (e.g.
>> your IT group), or an external one (e.g. abuse@domain)?
>
> Either.  If you have an AR header you trust, there's no reason to refuse
> it giving you an external destination.  Question is, how do we tell it's
> trusted, or do we care (especially with a site that's not 5451 aware)?

Yes, we care. Most servers aren't going to add this information. Most of 
the time, it will be provided by the spammer. If clients are going to do 
something with the information, it must be trusted.

Could the MDA add a DKIM signature for the authentication results header?

-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/