Re: Identifications dealing with Bulk Unsolicited Messages (BUMs)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 13:20 -0800, Douglas Otis wrote:

---

The safe way forward would be to demand that security be considered
first and foremost.  In a store and forward scheme, start the chain of
identification from the transmitting entity, where the originating
entity is then able to authorize the transmitting entity when they
differ.

---

As clarification, validating public transmitters, and assuring
email-addresses by way of transmitter authorizations should be
considered separate events.  In the case of DKIM, it is much easier and
safer to distinguish between public and private transmissions.  This
recommendation should not be considered a suggestion for reverting to
using something as cumbersome as bang addressing.

Identifying public transmitters permits feedback that can offer
protection for IP address reputations.  Nor will email-address
assurances identify message authors.  The lack of a transmitter
authorization where such is normally obtained simply signals recipients
to be cautious with a message.

-Doug




_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]