ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-vesely-dkim-joint-sigs

2010-09-17 17:15:10
On Sep 17, 2010, at 2:50 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

If this is primarily a workaround for perceived limitations of
reputation systems, then I humbly suggest that the premise is invalid.
Today's reputation systems aren't static; the operators are constantly
changing them in reaction to what the spammers do.

I realize that the answer to this will be largely speculation, but: Will that 
continue to be true in the IPv6-based and domain-based future of reputation 
systems?

Having to make ongoing adjustments might be a hindrance to such systems.

It's always a hinderance, sure, but there's nothing inherent to IPv4 which 
makes the adjustments necessary.

Adjustments to reputation systems are necessary because spammers keep changing 
tactics, attempting to get around the reputation systems.  And, patterns in 
legitimate mail change over time as well; it wasn't so long ago that Facebook 
notifications were getting caught by spam filters looking for similarity, which 
makes sense because they're all extremely similar -- and there's a lot of 
volume.

Any reputation system, or filter, or other anti-spam method which isn't 
reacting to changes will quickly become either ineffective at catching spam or 
ineffective at not catching non-spam, and people will stop using it, and pretty 
soon it'll be forgotten.

The same is true of other areas of security...the only constant is change.


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