mail-vet-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Auth-Results installed base

2008-12-17 02:08:05
Dave CROCKER wrote:

Hmmm.  It occurs to me that it might help things to have reports from those 
who 
are using the header.  Who is using and how they are using it could help 
establish a referential base when a) considering whether the spec is worthy 
of 
standardization, and b) considering proposed changes to the specification.
  
I just realized that although I responded to some posts in this thread, 
I never offered our own answer to the query.

We have filters which add the header field (unless they reject the 
message outright) after evaluating DKIM, DomainKeys, SPF and Sender-ID, 
which are all open source.  Then we have a feature of our commercial 
product which can be told to take 
routing/quarantine/filtering/modification actions on the message based 
on the results thus relayed.

I also submit these that I found via a popular search engine:

- an open source content checker (i.e. anti-spam/anti-virus/quarantine) 
called "amavisd" adds the header field after doing DomainKeys and DKIM 
evaluations for use by downstream entities; the author doesn't appear to 
be on this list, but he is on other related lists

- a SpamAssassin extension which scores based on the contents of the 
Authentication-Results header field with respect to DomainKeys signatures

- KarmaSphere, an experimental open source reputation system, collects 
Authentication-Results values and includes them in its evaluations
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Auth-Results installed base, Murray S. Kucherawy <=