IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 22 November 2016 00:28 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 A47D6129512 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:28:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 (body has been altered)" header.d=gmail.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 FNaxfap-Ug0p for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:28:15 -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 936CE129502 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:28:15 -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 uAM0STiu008496; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:28:30 -0800
Authentication-Results: simon.songbird.com; dkim=fail reason="verification failed; unprotected key" header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=WQ7saq+1; dkim-adsp=none (unprotected policy); dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from mail-vk0-f54.google.com (mail-vk0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id uAM0SQDC008492 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:28:27 -0800
Received: by mail-vk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id p9so1605368vkd.3 for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:27:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hdMYhN5wjNtNqfBzCngZE3HoQ8g+a3KwY1c065DGd+U=; b=WQ7saq+1Ad+irIaHs1WyxoTscEjuoMZC9UhXwiRn6rrSkcWvZD/24ecfv+H4bGkDyb xd8hCXskkfOVyjU6vv8+TyM8Avxx6pDZU/mM3NmVDi9wpgd6USgVbDFx7HaauoKUfcC1 UOXOHYL4cxmNwCGdrPROZKF5SMjhdPljV2/T58KUTMjBJfj1oApspvs0zSkCyuFHSXhg rVyadnt6KBRpuO2s8ntZCIATYqVgVw9ARu1cMe24wNqNVMlwb7lOmnCf9apXtwntDOop eRAl+m7dGtH+gJhfRRStQ/DfnKPmioy9si2V1ymqZ/xciAbvx+yXHSUjVaB4cBEexXVo bKhg==
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=hdMYhN5wjNtNqfBzCngZE3HoQ8g+a3KwY1c065DGd+U=; b=WmkYGxjJPlCCjQlnKaRZfu3oceJmw2QN6VWFLTxV68In8ON8jOZVYHLbomWoy6uKFM tz7DAhS1pClZxUpuHvBKAbGh4CjLIC8bRe5gb2HLjsZP/xmhe4PsM748WG8Y5q2RWqu6 wwM2XlPGC7+/3mvKBO4vjmE4O4NAC0PRsq5r6HSbq4j+D1daotxsrstp0ntR72cSI9Zz qJwOo7BUij0SVaGljmMtGA4W8jM/lW2GtRAQJfAJaoBpkUXcCrqFibi4KDNfO5iN4eq4 Ora9Z7dkbrgNgDBxtfnexqgAakfXNF2ydoUQXSk+yH7PAzmo4coGgwOaAr+9thQKWRcY TSCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03iO3xODyTZ9w0GJZhBYUWpLLxcDuZjKAW/wFFDy66yQLvEa94VLPX/jAsR10NJqrYY4mLw7+OqT5P5EA==
X-Received: by 10.31.213.194 with SMTP id m185mr6943161vkg.110.1479774441951; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:27:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.91.21 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:27:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6vCxDe73iwVR9apznCpBS28UnK=PUd2WgBzR3og4__ujg@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> <CABa8R6vCxDe73iwVR9apznCpBS28UnK=PUd2WgBzR3og4__ujg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:27:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbAebKZSwL19M1YVMX1J822u9epwbz3HEdOUvfOjNHOhA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brandon Long <blong@google.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="===============6236692257334264125=="
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Sender: ietf-dkim <ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org>

What's the actual damage here?  Does, say, gmail.com's reputation suffer
when it signs spam that then gets replayed?

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Brandon Long <blong@google.com> wrote:

> 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