Re: [Asrg] where the message originated (was: DKIM role?) (SM)
2009-01-10 22:18:53
It is important to remember that many individuals and many small
companies use personal or "vanity" domain names.
These domain names appear in their "From:" and "Reply-to:" addresses on
their outgoing e-mail messages, but SHOULD NOT be presumed to indicate
where the e-mail in question is arriving from.
For example, I might be travelling somewhere and sending e-mail messages
from an inhabitual location: a cruise ship Internet cafe, an Internet
access kiosk above a post office location in Beijing, a coffee bar, or
other such public-access location. In such a situation, I will
typically have NO control over what outgoing mail server is sending my
e-mail message, and since my being there is temporary I obviously don't
want to put a return address on my mail that would be connected with the
location where I physically am at the time.
Another example is where a small company also uses a company domain
name, although they might use very different mail handling for their
outgoing staff e-mail messages (for example, which might go through a
nearby ISP, often for historical reasons) as compared to their
automatically generated e-mails (example: invoices, price quotations,
EFT transfer notices, and the like) generated by their back-office
accounting systems... which might be sent directly by outgoing mail
servers inside their NAT router.
We've several times been hurt by stupid antispam approaches which refuse
perfectly legitimate e-mails because they don't like the IP address they
are coming from.
Another problem we have had is when we were sending company E-mails
through the outgoing mail server provided by our domain hosting company,
and one of the (tens of thousands) of companies they were hosting
domains for apparently became infected and began sending messages
containing a virus or something. The result was that ALL the companies
forwarding through that outgoing mail server became blocked, even though
our company (and, I'm sure, most of the companies using that same shared
outgoing mail server) was never infected or compromised.
While we're talking about the issue of antispam nuisances, another is
the situation where a spam blocker inadvertently serves as an "IP
address laundering agent" when they bounce back a message detected as
containing spam, or a virus. It is particularly stupid to bounce back a
message because it is detected to contain a virus WHICH IS KNOWN TO
FALSIFY OR COUNTERFEIT THE RETURN ADDRESS! In that case, the spam
blocker sending the 'bounce'/refused message does not know where the
original message was ACTUALLY sent from; commonly they will send the
bounce message to the COUNTERFEIT "from" address (n.b. the address the
original spammer ACTUALLY wanted to send the message to!) only now, it
arrives from a "clean" IP address (i.e. the IP address of the antispam
blocker which "bounced" it) rather than from the IP address actually
originating the message (which the actually intended recipient might
have refused, based on the sender IP address). So now the unwanted
message arrives at its intended destination, having "reflected" off a
spam reflector and thus now with a "reputable" IP address. (True, it is
now shown as an "undeliverable/spam/virus" bounce, but a lot of people
DO open such messages). ...ANYHOW, PARTICULARLY when a message is sent
by a virus KNOWN to falsify origin addresses, it is NOT helpful to send
a bounce message back to the "bogus" "origin" address indicated in the
message.
I have a folder here with probably something approaching a hundred
thousand such bounces, caused by spam messages which were sent using
bogus/falsified addresses but counterfeiting one of my domains, and
where these messages did not originate from any of my systems. The
point is that there is NO value in sending back a bounceback/refused
message unless you are SURE you know where it should be sent back to
(i.e. who actually sent it). It's NOT enough to just believe the
"From:" address.
Subject: Re: [Asrg] where the message originated (was: DKIM role?)
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org>
Message-ID:
<6(_dot_)2(_dot_)5(_dot_)6(_dot_)2(_dot_)20090109113345(_dot_)030d80d0(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 13:05 08-01-2009, Franck Martin wrote:
on 4) for information there is this blocking list:
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php?ipr=202.170.42.206
but it tends to block by AS number and in the above case, AS9241 is
the whole country of Fiji.
That shouldn't be a problem if you don't communicate with people from Fiji. :-)
Also as a note, I think dealing with high volume mail sender is not
the issue, they are known, we know their technics, etc... it is more
to deal with the long tail of little companies, organisations, small
ISPs, etc..
Some receivers may view these small organizations as statistically
insignificant. These small organizations generally adopt antispam
policies without analyzing whether such policies can have a negative
impact on them in future.
At 09:44 09-01-2009, Douglas Otis wrote:
White-listing based upon a domain would be dangerous without also
including the IP address of the SMTP client and message tracking.
There are companies currently providing this service, particularly
needed where spam remains largely unmanaged.
The question was whether it is important to note where the message
came from. I take it that your answer is yes.
The algorithm can remain oblivious to who owns the SMTP client. It
determines whether a conversation was observed, while also allowing
also users to submit corrections.
That only works as long as the two end-points for the conversation
are static. Such a constraint is only acceptable to users until they
move around and experience a communication failure.
Regards,
-sm
--
Gordon Peterson II
http://personal.terabites.com
1977-2007: Thirty year anniversary of local area networking
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [Asrg] where the message originated (was: DKIM role?) (SM),
Gordon Peterson <=
|
|
|