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