IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Tue, 22 November 2016 00:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B411294B0 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:12:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.789
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=google.com
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 qAiWVeoxltxO for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:12:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95A0A129502 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:05:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [127.0.0.1]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id uAM05eQD007975; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:05:41 -0800
Authentication-Results: simon.songbird.com; dkim=fail reason="verification failed; unprotected key" header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=D2P8mYbN; dkim-adsp=none (unprotected policy); dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from mail-oi0-f42.google.com (mail-oi0-f42.google.com [209.85.218.42]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id uAM05aeP007961 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:05:37 -0800
Received: by mail-oi0-f42.google.com with SMTP id y198so1943388oia.1 for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:04:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9U2xIzb4QiznjpBImDwPmR+xtRouNOrG1lPihE5O0QM=; b=D2P8mYbNrCPxIYx2sVABpgROTIwEXjtc71by0V41EOKBtn/zU6hgAZbB8PEIXwFu1U rltb0NK7W5R0RKT+zYxtVVxL5Iig5gnWSZvGdzm6vge69BbO/06OPSCahxopeDnMK4jh 6UgRUOogutfvofNlEE7SiOzw8YH2QqPYRNAW3j0wJ3injvohT+8z523IttqdMUjFsUBo OcWpUEkYpBE595tyRd5JRx7u+wQo5Rukxlh9TlLfivZyXrYagsc1M/aJjZAH0Ij4vv/w sC++AwWzSX+vW7URsylcE99nlsPEx7kpJhtsyrzs9zPUvq7dbKVR4B9H7tMBkuGL4q+R /jZg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9U2xIzb4QiznjpBImDwPmR+xtRouNOrG1lPihE5O0QM=; b=GL0tp5PdwU9aMsntA0wbM2HbI5SJY20ejtdOngjF+9CEI8ETVaueABaLbk+X7bqogb 5cN65Yt4KqQDka8ATcK83Kb4mWVyfqXE8nnUdWVrU6w3hAPzq30PRpxlUd/i9+t78weJ bHKeBd2C2KkgL1Np03qSn8rz2/H/jkT0fO8K1pT9kISgtOosnH2sWgjpGIVYmLSsdAI9 C6s4QwlcjRk+2DO+eFyLeFUDQcvfXLL/4EW6jVMNx1ANKSnim/oICWszNC1BXyjdZkh5 505ZD05DK15bSxE7f82cWob2ITxI2fOI7yS0HOkDS+s5xx82XRPohjN2u+OAyehpOosq 7h8Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01vzUTLAJGNkbxV/3UHSuF0xFaFqPrFDkMJT/RZVnfbtQALoh7V+g561ALD95W/t0SRKVZgex+gWyu377l1
X-Received: by 10.202.253.208 with SMTP id b199mr7408161oii.142.1479773072209; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:04:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.42.43 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:04:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.157.42.43 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:04:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwa_vPQGgBuX4g_62ef3K6g1aGDTBrYXk3bnZyRxvgQ4_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZprdqTEpjd9Z+prf0m8B7gZ=-mWXm+dzy-WBN-0HyRww@mail.gmail.com> <82FCD54F-7D3F-4778-BF6C-C7735EDB99AE@kitterman.com> <CAL0qLwZvL3MyUtcsfomHBkBreX3dEB+NsaYTp+_ziA2NNqt1Cg@mail.gmail.com> <37927422.Q9kxFfTxl2@kitterma-e6430> <20161115165319.GB30243@lapsedordinary.net> <FCE93B2B-5853-4A35-8A88-75B9F27970FA@kitterman.com> <20161115191729.GA3886@lapsedordinary.net> <CAL0qLwZ4Z0CTfJwaY5jMm8Z8==WPNMymOXy5QWg79m_GQEzC8Q@mail.gmail.com> <e2b21830-2f03-e012-6292-1439ef038727@mtcc.com> <CAL0qLwa_vPQGgBuX4g_62ef3K6g1aGDTBrYXk3bnZyRxvgQ4_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:04:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CABa8R6vCxDe73iwVR9apznCpBS28UnK=PUd2WgBzR3og4__ujg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf-dkim <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM Discussion List <ietf-dkim.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/options/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4420138152529331462=="
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Sender: ietf-dkim <ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org>

In examples we've seen, the mail is delivered to a host and immediately
(seconds) picked up by the spammers botnet and millions of copies sent.

Short of charging an exorbitant amount of money per message sent, I don't
see how any service can prevent sending a single spam message with 100%
accuracy.

Brandon

On Nov 15, 2016 12:52 PM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
>
>> So, when the filters catch up, it will then mark it as spam again
>> regardless of the DKIM signature.
>>
>> So what exactly is the problem here?
>>
>
> I suppose when the filters catch up, the spammer can no longer get
> $HIGH_REPUTATION_MAIL_SERVER to sign that message until the next hole is
> discovered.  But everything submitted and replayed prior to that has
> already gone out and been delivered on the basis of that reputation.
>
> That's the problem here.
>
> -MSK
>
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>
>

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email