Re: Spammers answering TMDA Queries

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

 




On Oct 3, 2007, at 2:59 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

There is more we can do here but no more that we should feel obliged to do - except for the fact that we are a standards organization and should eat the dog food.

In particular, sign the messages with dkim and deploy spf.

Few problems should be caused by DKIM, although it might be difficult to claim DKIM solves a particular problem affecting IETF mailing lists.

The same is not true for SPF. SPF is experimental, can be problematic, and is very likely unsafe for use with DNS. SPF carries suitable warnings indicating it may cause problems. SPF may interfere with the delivery of forwarded messages. SPF might be used in conjunction with Sender-ID. Suggested solutions for dealing with Sender-ID requires yet another version of SPF be published. Use of which might fall under: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/results.aspx? pocId=&freetext=SenderID_License-Agreement.pdf&DisplayLang=en

Possible application of Sender-ID will cause IETF lists to break once SPF is published. The purported use of SPF for curtailing forged DSNs requires policy settings which then create new problems. When desired, names rather than address lists should be used to register an email path. A name path approach avoids the dangerous DNS transactional issues. Rather than relying upon unscalable SPF address lists, instead an extension might be applied to DKIM. The DKIM extension could offer a means to prevent DSNs from being dropped when Mail From domains differ.

http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/dkim/draft-otis-dkim-tpa-ssp-01.txt

-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]