-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 7:03 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] No signatures, bad signatures, cousin domains
Heuristic based systems like SA are subject to the phases of the moon
with respect to what they find valuable and for how long. If they find
it useful to educe something from DKIM or lack thereof, more power to
them. Heck, if they just used the signature header pattern to determine
spam from ham for different senders, that would be cool too. This is not
in conflict from the statement that _cryptographically_ a broken signature
is no different than a missing signature. SA and its ilk just don't operate
on the plane of mathematical provables is all; nothing wrong with that.
My use of Spamassassin for correlation of DKIM verification versus message
classification is really only a proof-of-concept thing. Certainly connecting
this stuff to a much more robust spam feedback system like the one Cloudmark
has would produce far better results. It's somewhere on my to-do list.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html