On 2026-10-08 03:18, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
Whatever address (addresses?) the GMX user requested.
I don't see how a spammer could use it to send bulk email,
accessory to the fact. the perpetrator is not the bulk spammer you are
thinking of. the perpetrator opens a free webmail account, sets a
forwarder to the victim, and forgets. both the spammer and the free
webmail service are just accessories. some scenarios:
- competitor jamming a business' sales or support inbox;
- disgruntled employee jamming the boss' inbox;
- salty ex-spouse jamming the inboxes of those they believe wronged them
in the divorce process.
plenty of abuse opportunities for human misbehavior. directing the flow
of outbound traffic according to sending operator's classification is a
welcome and useful signal for the receiving operator's own
classification and disposition.
> Were dkim and spf marked as from GMX or the original sender ?
additional signals. any signal, properly interpreted, is valuable to
decide how to dispose of the message. I don't have one of these emails
in front of me and won't speculate what cryptographic signals GMX adds
or not on top of those signals, whether present or not, from the
original sender. I do expect any operator along the way to apply their
best judgment and GMX' judgment of segregating this flow of potential
spam from the other flows of messages it sends is a sensible way to
protect its reputation while providing a service. If I was GMX, I would
not risk my reputation with DKIM/SPF on forwarded messages the same way
they do not risk co-mingling with their other flows of messages. Is
there not ARC intended for the forwarder scenario?
Yuv
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
