Elizabeth Zwicky writes: > I did not say that the levels were the same; I said the attackers > have not gone away. They are not at high volume, but they're sure > sitting there checking to see whether or not it's working.
What you said, exactly, is But I do, in fact, have data, and that data tells me that the attackers forging our users based on stolen addressbooks have never stopped; we are still blocking them now. What they were doing was sending millions, perhaps billions, of spoofed messages. "Never stopped" implies they are still sending millions, perhaps billions, of spoofed messages. As does "we are still." Do you really mean to invoke "plausible deniability"? N.B. I've already embarrassed myself twice by citing your message as support for my belief (expressed in my own words, not a quote or paraphrase) that the spammers are still attacking Yahoo! (in volume, vs. probing for weaknesses). I resent that. > x= is a weak protection here; spammers can and do move millions of > messages a minute to us. Then again we are well placed to implement > special handling here, as are most if not all sites receiving mail > at this kind of scale. So the problem is at small and intermediate > sites. Implementation of DKIM-Delegate is a site-by-site decision. I don't see why you would know better than the site admins for other sites. If you're worried about them, document the issues and let them decide. In any case, filtering by 3rd parties has to be presumed weak, and lists are obvious targets for spammers (as amplification devices). Anybody who doesn't check incoming list traffic for spam should fold up shop and send their users to Yahoo! IMO. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
