ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities

2004-04-02 17:43:25

Below I've summarized, for each type of identity we're considering securing, what the identity is used for, the benefit we gain from widespread implementation, and the current use cases that are broken by widespread implementation.

In my experience, spammers are quick to adapt to changes in the ecosystem--much more so than many legitimate users. It is unlikely that protecting any of these identities will result in more than a temporary reduction in the volume of spam, it will merely change the attack vectors that spammers use.

* HELO/EHLO domain
- Used in constructing the Received: header
Given wide deployment:

Spammers/viruses will use domains over which they have control or through which they're able to relay.


* MAIL FROM (Return-Path:)
- Used for the recipient of bounce mail
Given wide deployment:

Unrelated third party domains which assert a policy will not receive bounces from forged return paths. Such bounces will instead go to domains controlled by spammers, domains through which spammers are able to relay, domains that don't assert a policy, or to the empty return path.

Alias expansion across domains will be broken. There exists at least one proposal for a new type of expansion to replace alias expansion for cross-domain use.

Desired forging (by some mobile/wireless deployments, etc.) of return paths will be broken.

* From: header
- Used by recipient to identify author
Given wide deployment:

Domains that assert a policy will not appear in the From: header of forged email sent through servers not listed in the policy.

List expansion will be broken for mail sent from domains that assert a policy. For this reason, it is expected that few domains would assert such a policy.

Desired forging of From: will be broken.


Sender:
- A subset of recipients will know to use this in preference to From: for identifying the sender of a message
Given wide deployment:

Domains that assert a policy will not appear in the Sender: header of forged email sent through servers not listed in the policy.

List expansion will be broken for mail sent from domains that assert a policy. For this reason, it is expected that few domains would assert such a policy.

Desired forging of Sender: will be broken.


Given these tradeoffs, I would say that protecting the MAIL FROM (Return-Path) is of the most value. After that, protecting the From: header is of potentially greater value to a much smaller set of domains.

Protecting HELO/EHLO is of negligible value, as the HELO/EHLO value is not used for anything important.