spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps)

2004-08-16 16:02:11

Somebody, possibly John Glube wrote (possibly on August 17, 2004 1:17 AM) 
possibly this message:

* Receivers need to filter. Some sort of solution is required 
for the micro business owner, who complies with best 
practices and for whom email communication is mission 
critical, so that receivers can protect their networks while 
letting 'trusted,' 'accredited' or 'vouched' mail can pass.

Why I do not trust you? There was very long discussion about pre-DATA rejection.
Sure. For real forgery pre-DATA rejection can be good. 
But why do you reveal yourself and show spammer that you use SPF? 

This will allow them to increase effect of spam. 
Those who do not perform SPF filtering will regularly receive forgery. 
But those who will use SPF filtering will receive emails from domains with 
"good" reputation because of 500 USD paid to ISIPP
Accreditation Database owners.

This is nonsense to disable content filtering on _your_ server because somebody 
else paid to somebody (not you) a bribe.
BTW, How do you will collect information for reputation services? 
I (and a few my goods friends from another parts of the World) can submit a 
complains that Meng constantly sending me spam message
about his new SPF system and propose to enlarge our rating.
I will attach this message: 

------------------------ START
Received: from portent.listbox.com (portent.listbox.com [208.58.1.195])
        by mail.24.odessa.ua (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.12.7) with ESMTP id i7G3uSg19576
        for <spf-discuss(_at_)spam(_dot_)24(_dot_)odessa(_dot_)ua>; Sun, 15 Aug 
2004 20:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by portent.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B576831A2
        for <spf-discuss(_at_)spam(_dot_)24(_dot_)odessa(_dot_)ua>; Mon, 16 Aug 
2004 00:17:36 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:16:39 -0400
From: Meng Weng Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com>
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Good Domain List one step closer to reality 
(actually two steps)
Message-ID: <20040816041639(_dot_)GN28384(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com>
References: <009001c48186$5329ddf0$6c62fea9(_at_)ibmrkydk2ufvdd> 
<MHEGIFHMACFNNIMMBACAGEGPIHAA(_dot_)sethg(_at_)GoodmanAssociates(_dot_)com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
<MHEGIFHMACFNNIMMBACAGEGPIHAA(_dot_)sethg(_at_)GoodmanAssociates(_dot_)com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i
Sender: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Precedence: list
Reply-To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
List-ID: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>

Accreditation that is money-based is only one kind of accreditation.

For only 20.000 USD a year our teams will enlarge your rating in all reputation 
services to 100.00 %
Contact our sales department on mengwong(_at_)morespam(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com or 
leave a voice message on +1 800 12345678

There's also "here is an address where you can have the police come and arrest 
me if I've broken the law".
------------------------ EOM 

How will your reputation service resolve ours complains? 
Will they reduce Meng rating?

This is clearly show that "SPF + reputation services" is non-doable.
Only "S/MIME (with headers) + reputation services" will work.

SPF can prevent only forgery in Mail-From. 
It only automated currently possible activities. Anyway we can track source of 
email using IP from our SMTP server logs.
SPF was not designed for reputation services. Do not fool yourself.

P.S> Okay. I see that GOSSiP possibly is something valuable. I will take a 
closer look in near time.

BTW, why there is no any information about MUA after-fact based filtering? 
All current systems have spam detection latency. This can result 1000's of 
messages delivered to mailboxes.
How about re-validation of messages after 1-2 hours they are received? 
Or even better - re-validation in mail user agent after POP3 retrieval. 
Anyway there is always at least 4 hours then people sleep and can not read 
their emails.
This kind of re-validation will allow using filtering even if your ISP decided 
to not use it, or use with different settings or to
work-around detection latency.
Will be GOSSiP useful for this scenario?

--
Andriy G. Tereshchenko
Odessa, Ukraine


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>