IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Tue, 09 September 2014 18:22 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 160211A885F for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 11:22:38 -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 2aOlrs7kh9lH for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 11:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22a.google.com (mail-qg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51CEE1A8873 for <endymail@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 11:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id q107so7874122qgd.15 for <endymail@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:22:31 -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=Z9ESQDxLdiUig4kTjUrSv1u47C2R4HAhPMjku/x/aeo=; b=Eqpyp8cfsZgIeOuizE28yXrCHhWkt7wSeGvdYj1l7FBFVPdSb2zrQ8YfZRKLXvpz6+ tguRgdz2jcSSVoYsgpC4H1QwmWRK8r2N8go89zaRTLiuElMdxYI0bnohDMxgbLGrlZbq 3whxNCR8RNTmONl6XEW6T/V1YasyTmCyMQ08sWXfw2EKlHVtywpQl6grRnNiA8qZ3xWP ijAi3iGD7dwyXnfY4YARuhRyp7hf7Q8BnW8OT2u96yps9o9MCIqGGnE1i5vQfuPbEWdq vHC5zppAk5KrbVuPfIsYLwwrSkpyjELhHH5vTjiFjdX6G7GS5DY4mxNtPfEKFs3V7eGA 8X0g==
X-Received: by 10.140.94.1 with SMTP id f1mr24556864qge.41.1410286951333; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:22:31 -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 g52sm10423416qgg.17.2014.09.09.11.22.29 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <540F44A4.50206@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:19:16 -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> <540F4063.5080304@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.11.1409091418400.3796@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1409091418400.3796@joyce.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/endymail/FQnDBjBE69_5pjdkvdkWlAo8xjw
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 18:22:38 -0000

On 9/9/2014 11:19 AM, John R Levine wrote:
> Yup, about SMTP time rejection based just on DKIM failure. 


Oh?  Well, that would have been nice to include with the assertion.

And no, it isn't obvious from either the context of your message or the
rest of the content of that message.

Given the nature of DKIM, SMTP-time use should be expected to be
minimal, at best.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email