ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Why mailing lists should strip DKIM signatures

2010-04-24 16:09:31
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

Indeed, and if you review my previous mail I believe you will find
that's exactly what I said.

The problem isn't that Yahoo is doing anything wrong.  The problem
is that leaving signatures on list mail leads to bogus results.

And complaints you can't really take action on. It's not your mailing
list, so you cannot prevent further mail to the recipient.

Sure you can. If one of your users is spamming, this would be interesting
too. The problem here is that John apparently doesn't like the service that
Y! provides, and instead of taking that up with Y! he's decided to blame it
on DKIM.

If you subscribe to a mailing list and post to it, that's a far cry
from a bulk distribution of unwanted mail. I'm not sure that any sort
of report like that would ever establish that a user is spamming. If
the user is posting objectionable content to a list, the immediate
resolution is for the list manager to remove that subscriber. So,
we're back to, it should go to the list manager, not the originating
ISP. I would find it useless for it to go back to the original
person's ISP by way of an FBL because I would not be able to find it
actionable. Why? Because there was distribution of the email in
question outside of the control of the original sender. I guess that's
what it boils down to for me. If a message is being re-distributed
outside of my control, ala how discussion lists work, I don't think I
am any longer the responsible party as far as a spam report goes.

I'm not grok'ing a scenario where that report would help you find
somebody who is spamming. I'm open to listening, though. What's an
example scenario where you would find that useful?

Regards,
Al Iverson

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>