-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 10.11.08 04:11, Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
Well, i don't care. I accept the emails passed by DKIM, anyway..
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
so you intentionally create false negatives just because they are DKIM
signed?
On 10.11.08 07:34, Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
My answer is "Yes" if i should say. Because of the spam case is the
concern of the hosting, not DKIM. Yahoo and Google are trying for the
such spam case.
Let's get serious. If you had reading specs of RFC4408 and RFC4871, you
know the role of both SPF and DKIM. Exactly both SPF and DKIM are tools
for anti-pishing, not anti-spam (at here i defined the term "SPAM" as
"UCE"). Sometimes we received the spam passed DKIM from Yahoo and
Google. However. We have no way to stop the such spam in this time.
Because stopping the such spam is not DKIM's scope.
I _know_ the scope of SPF and DKIM. They both don't say that mail is ham or
the spam, they only say if it's forged:
[...snip...]
The above statement is what i wanted to hear from you ;;
[...snip...]
Giving them that big negative (well... low) score is just stupid.
I strongly advise you to remove that customisation and let other rules do
their job. Otherwise you'll get flooded by spammers who DKIM-sign their
spam.
Thanks for advice. But, nevertheless, i'll keep the score "-45.3" for
DKIM_VERIFIED. That's only my concern. OK, if you want to see my the
customization, see following:
<URL:http://izb.knu.ac.kr/~bh/stuff/izb-spamassassin-local.cf.example>
byunghee
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAkkXfUwACgkQsCouaZaxlv6KAQCgikobNguI/oKoPoRidsqUBMUl
nVkAn0X0Ts+iexnqmMOJWhn/jtNWM4Sq
=/cSL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
dkim-ops mailing list
dkim-ops(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops