On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:24 PM, McDowell, Brett
<bmcdowell(_at_)paypal(_dot_)com> wrote:
I've read through all the responses on the list but I'm responding to John's
original message because so much of the responses have made critical
assumptions about the nature of the FBL with Yahoo!.
John, can you simply clarify the rules/logic of your FBL with Yahoo!? That
will clarify this scenario considerably.
________________________________________________
Brett McDowell
Technology Evangelist, Information Risk Management, PayPal
I was almost ready to agree with John here, but then I recalled
Brett's message*. I use gmail and the rules/filters features. Had I
not selected the "do not put into spam" option for the rule for this
list, Brett's message would of gone into the spam folder. I wondered
why.
I'm sure Brett can elaborate, but I believe ebay/paypal has an
agreement with some ISPs about unsigned email. I believe this is a
back door agreement and not the major ISPs honouring policy
statements. But I see that Paypal has a DomainKey policy too and that
they sign everything:
$ host -ttxt _domainkey.paypal.com
_domainkey.paypal.com descriptive text "o=-"
I don't know if this list strips signatures or not. The only signature
present was the list's DKIM signature.
Now, John's desire for mailing lists to strip signatures would mean
strict policy statements would fail. So this either highlights:
1) policy statements are futile
2) mailing lists are broken anyway
3) the importance of RFC5322From is overrated
* if you didn't see Brett's message, check your spam folder. I replied
using his message as a base.
--
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html