Resurrecting an old thread. As DMARC act on direct domain spoofing, I looked at how spamassassin could help on non-direct domain spoofing. I noticed none of the rules in http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests_3_3_x.html verify that domains found in various part of an email are in spamhaus DBL or SURBL.
An oversight or I missed something? Implementing these rules, I think, would be very useful. On Jan 10, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Tom Hendrikx <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10-01-13 22:55, Franck Martin wrote: >> What I (we?) don't want is that DMARC affects the reputation of the email >> as spammers will publish a DMARC record if it lowers their spamassassin >> score. > > My idea was more along the lines: > - add some informational rules with near-zero scores that tell the > recipient about Dmarc policy existance and contents (see: DKIM_SIGNED) > - add some penalty rules when policy evaluation fails, or alignment fails. > > While it does not improve deliverablity for poor-formatted senders (both > phish and legit), it would create a direct positive experience for > recipients: block more phish mail. > >> >> Also I think the RFC specifies that aggregate reports are an integral part >> of DMARC. You can't develop one without the other. > > Noted. > >> >> The opendmarc milter/proxy way seems the way to go, spamassassin is >> installed this way on linux boxes, I don't see why it would not be as easy >> to install opendmarc. > > I used Spamassassin just as an example, but let's stay on that route. > - It has already a huge install base, adding a plugin to something that > already exists is easier than integrating a new piece of software in > your mailstack. > - It has lots of ways to integrate other than a milter api. > - Not everyone runs a milter-capable MTA. > >> _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
