On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:45:22 +0100, Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On 10/15/2010 06:51 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
And yet the current protocol will allow an evil mail _apparently_ from
Ebay to appear, with no means for the recipient to detect the
difference.
They're not apparently from them. They *are* from them.
No they are not. Clearly you have failed to understand the scam that I am
concerned about, though I have explained in often enough.
And as regards using current malware detection software, can you please
explain to us how that is supposed to catch an eveil mail signed by a
brand-new throwaway domain that has not yet had time to acquire any
reputation, good or bad?
Irrelevant for the current discussion.
On the contrary, that is precisely the attack of interest, so it is
supremely relevant. You claim it can be thwarted by other means, but have
failed to explain exactly how those "other means" would work.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html