On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Florian Sager wrote: > I just reviewed [ietf-dkim] "Proposal to amend SSP draft with a > reporting address" --> the responses dealt with using ARF or an own > abuse report format but they didn't refer to the reporting address. What > was the result of this discussion? There is no r= property in the ASP > draft (yet).
See https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting/. It's a draft proposal right now. > For this spam mail I'd like to send an abuse report to Yahoo! but > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is not the identity > responsible for the signature (and therefore an appropriate reporting > address) but it is very likely the spammer itself (considering the content of > the mail). As long as ASP will set (simply said) i= to a From address there > is once more need for a distinct reporting address of the identity > responsible for the signature (e.g. as a signature property r=, I'd prefer > this as a part of the DKIM-Signature). "i=" is the signing identity. It's not guaranteed to be a good place to which to report abuse if the sender is malicious. Yahoo would need to either explicitly set "i=" to be the abuse address (which they could do) or implement the reporting specification (which is still a draft, so it's not likely). > Second aspect: besides abuse-reporting I'd like to setup a BL containing > tuples like <alleged sender, signing-domain>. I am hesitating to use From or > Sender as <alleged sender>; in my view there would be more value if the > identity that signs a message adds an own f=<this is what I claim to be the > alleged sender> to the signature: this could be a hash(SMTP AUTH property) or > a uid or MAIL FROM or Authenticated-Sender (the only thing that matters here > is an internal, unique user-level id ... I am aware of the arbitrary forging > of this property, but ISPs should profit by this). Why can't you use "i=" for that? _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
