Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Tue, 09 September 2014 18:04 UTC
Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: endymail@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: endymail@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B2761A0020
for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 11:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,
DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44])
by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id MvrWIa6ALJjO for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Tue, 9 Sep 2014 11:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x236.google.com (mail-qg0-x236.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::236])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D51D1A0026
for <endymail@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 11:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id z60so2452379qgd.27
for <endymail@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=lVZLvU6mWvFWsbFnXAzsojIvjDY4O7cgIAaKtFqv+34=;
b=HPZdYwrPjhjj+pHvBkjbw/uI7Yx5hUOwvfpVdB/2PlHPmNWrXldHAMxVMYGouZxnGz
40JBd6NIFb2Z0+2N2qt18wUDpx3D/2qZPnopao2gsjjfKXPLA+Iy0N5uYhoh3SJg/fwn
4BGm3LurqOxWTZ8L7cxI+LPG7200X7maBqQO72y+OwisrD2Cb1AhX2zV4afkkFB3tOyA
Jd6qsOOTulPOHOa2v/sLsuxtlveAoLo/Kxlyyk2/kpPhmkhZpYISL/wzw20lh+P3jtt7
5aSe0pzk52u1f0obUhGFWi+PeeJnvkQGxiPxHaaTQlo6B9RLmZ1cTWCNqr6F7lIPSToH
f0+Q==
X-Received: by 10.229.38.3 with SMTP id z3mr53149858qcd.17.1410285862898;
Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net.
[76.218.8.156])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g5sm10849366qaz.39.2014.09.09.11.04.21
for <multiple recipients>
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <540F4063.5080304@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:01:07 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
References: <20140907170207.14888.qmail@joyce.lan>
<540F39F2.1040801@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.11.1409091350310.1894@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1409091350310.1894@joyce.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/endymail/A0-bI7EBXffUzWBIGRMiFuev38A
Cc: endymail@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext
X-BeenThere: endymail@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <endymail.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/endymail>,
<mailto:endymail-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/endymail/>
List-Post: <mailto:endymail@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:endymail-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/endymail>,
<mailto:endymail-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 18:04:25 -0000
On 9/9/2014 10:53 AM, John R Levine wrote: >> On 9/7/2014 10:02 AM, John Levine wrote: >>> I don't know of anyone who does message >>> rejection based on DKIM signatures >> >> Google and Yahoo say that they use DKIM signatures as part of reputation >> assessment. That's distinct from any use of DMARC. > > Oh, sure, but now that's just part of content based analysis: You made a simple, flat assertion. Since the context of all email filtering these days is within an elaborate engine, a purely isolated, literal and simplistic interpretation of your statement wouldn't make much sense. I queried about the claim and got back counter data. > I suppose we can put DKIM in the very small category of content analysis Reputation assessment is a complex game, involving many factors. But that's not the question at hand. The question here is whether such assessments are made against DKIM-validated names. The answer is yes. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Eliot Lear
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Eliot Lear
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext John Levine
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Pete Resnick
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Dave Crocker
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Pete Resnick
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Eliot Lear
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Dave Crocker
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Dave Crocker
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Dave Crocker
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext John Levine
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Watson Ladd
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext John Levine
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Eliot Lear
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Cyrus Daboo
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [Endymail] where's the end, was spam versus c… John Levine
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Endymail] where's the end, was spam versus c… Watson Ladd
- Re: [Endymail] where's the end, was spam versus c… John R Levine
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Pete Resnick
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext John R Levine
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Werner Koch
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Brandon Long
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Leo Vegoda
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Cyrus Daboo
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Dave Crocker
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext John R Levine
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Dave Crocker
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext John R Levine
- Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext Dave Crocker