ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again

2011-05-27 07:33:55


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:36 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again

On Thursday, May 26, 2011 07:40:17 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of MH Michael
Hammer
(5304) Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:15 PM
To: Scott Kitterman; ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again

The other piece of the equation is how often do I see abusive mail
purporting to be from this domain with no signature while mail
from
this
domain that is normally signed has no significant problems.

I posted the results of some research on that very question earlier
this
week:

http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2011q2/016656.html

My experience is it varies a lot by domain.  Some domains are phishing
targets
and some aren't.  If it's not a phishing target DKIM doesn't matter
much
either way.  If it is, then if they can manage to sign all their
outbound mail
signed/not signed gets to be useful.  So I don't think looking at
global
status is a very useful basis for deciding the question.

Scott K

Remember, it's not static, it's dynamic. What was a non-phished domain
yesterday could be a phished domain today or tomorrow. DKIM isn't a
magic bullet, it's one more tool in the toolbox. I've found that in
combination with SPF it works very nicely on double fail and none/fail
as far as catching badness with very little impact on legitimate mail.

Mike


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