ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] list vs contributor signatures, was Wrong Discussion

2010-05-27 22:27:58

On May 27, 2010, at 7:38 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:

"Steve Atkins" <steve(_at_)wordtothewise(_dot_)com> wrote:

That should be

Legitimate email from paypal:

  72% rejected by ADSP
  28% not rejected

Phishing emails using "paypal" in the From line:

  39% rejected by ADSP
  61% not rejected.

Why "paypal" in the from line and not from payal.com? It sounds like you are 
capturing messages unrelated to any ADSP assertions paypal.com might make. 

No, I'm capturing (a subset of) phishes that were targeting paypal. That subset 
was those that were using the string "paypal" somewhere in the From: field, 
either in the local part or domain part of the email address or the "friendly" 
from. Some of those would have been rejected by ADSP, some wouldn't. See the 
message the one you quote was a reply to for the methodology.

This is just a quick and dirty way to identify a subset of paypal related 
phishes, though, as I don't want to grovel through hundreds of thousands of 
messages looking for phishes by hand. A more thorough approach would have found 
a number of additional phishes that did not have the string "paypal" anywhere 
in the From: line, and so which would not have been rejected by ADSP. In other 
words, were I more thorough I would have found exactly the same number of 
phishes that were rejected by ADSP and I would have found more that were not 
rejected.

(If you were to define phishes targeting paypal as "phishing mail that would 
have been rejected by ADSP" then that would lead to 100% of phishes rejected by 
ADSP and 0% that weren't. That would be nonsensical, though.)

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

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