Re: [ietf-dkim] [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

[Brandon Long <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 8:05 AM, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> >And, if you think about it, spam is in the eyes of the recipient.  If you
> >take this message I'm composing right now and send a couple billions
> copies
> >to the top 10 mailbox providers, how many spam markings will it get?  With
> >some of the spammers we deal with, all they're looking for is clicks on
> the
> >links in the email, there is nothing particularly commercial about the
> >content itself.
>
> Now I'm really confused about what problem we're trying to solve here.
> You are of course right that there are messages that become spam if
> they're remailed a zillion times, but there are also messages that
> don't.  If I send a message to, say, nanog, it goes to a lot of
> people, the DKIM signatures usually survive, and it's not spam.
>
> If the bulk remail is spam, that will presumably affect the reputation
> of the places from which it is remailed.  That's not enough?
>

In a reputation based system, you take reputation on various features of
the message, and whether or not a message is spam depends on all of those
features, and then feeds back into each of those features.

So, the IPs for the botnet the message is spammed from will certainly take
a hit, or may already be bad.  The reputation of the dkim auth domain is
likely also to suffer, though.

In an IPv6 world, domain auth may play a higher role than IP for
reputation, given the high number of IP addresses.

Of course, the obvious mitigation there is to be more careful of dinging
dkim auth when spf auth doesn't pass or match.

Brandon

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html