On February 11, 2023 5:23:39 AM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy"
<superu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 8:09 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>
>> I've always thought that the likelihood of a protocol level solution for
>> this issue is pretty close to zero if not zero. The various proposed
>> solutions in the problem draft haven't given me any reason to dissuade
>> me of that notion.
>>
>> That said, I think that we might be able to catalog some clues that
>> something is suspicious which taken with many other clues can be used to
>> by a receiver to make an ultimate decision of spamminess. A good example
>> is the unsigned To: and Subject: lines. Even if it's strictly allowed by
>> the spec, that doesn't mean it's not suspect. It could be really useful
>> to collect this clues as input signals to a larger preponderance of
>> evidence.
>>
>
>Authentication-Results already noted the idea that a signature, even a
>valid one, might still be considered not acceptable to the verifier and
>reported differently for one reason or another. An unsigned Subject was
>the classic example.
>
>Dealing with this in A-R nicely removes it from being dealt with at the
>protocol level, where I would argue this sort of logic doesn't belong.
This is pretty close to the example in RFC 8601, section 2.4 for a 'policy'
ptype result.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
