-- 
Mark Andrews

> On 6 Jul 2025, at 09:01, Tim Howe via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> One of the biggest problems I face is that spamming is largely accepted
> as perfectly normal for some groups.
> 
> Convince marketing people that they shouldn't be able to just email everyone
> they can identify about anything they want and it just doesn't compute.
> 
> I get more spam directly from Salesforce's network than anywhere else because 
> it's
> a service their customers expect them to supply.
> 
> Have fun fighting that.
> 
> --TimH
> 
>> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 18:44:05 -0400
>> Barry Shein via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> At the 2003 MIT Spam Conference there were two keynotes, myself and
>> someone else who is highly esteemed in the e-mail world.
>> 
>> They spoke about these various emerging (in 2003) authentication
>> methods and I asked a question like any participant which echoed
>> what's being said below: Aren't the bad guys just going to learn how
>> to make their email authenticated? So all I know, with great
>> certainty, is this email is from Phishing R Us, Inc?
>> 
>> The answer was, well of course, but this will all work because we will
>> also develop reputation systems.
>> 
>> That was 2003, nearly a quarter century ago.
>> 
>> Unfortunately too many of the problems on the internet were solved on
>> paper (i.e., RFCs and their ilk) 20, 30, 40...years ago.
>> 
>> But nothing came of them because writing down a clever engineering
>> hack is a lot easier than herding a billion cats but the
>> organizational structures lean heavily in favor of the "let's write up
>> another clever engineering hack!" crowd.
>> 
>> Put another way: Why is there no economics behind solving any of this?
>> 
>> In other areas like, e.g., creditworthiness vast infrastructures have
>> been built and maintained and seem to work well enough to keep the
>> lenders afloat (actually, to keep them among the wealthiest in all of
>> world history.)
>> 
>> But this stuff remains mostly a volunteer effort except where someone
>> can maybe spin up a consultancy or customized service but it's always
>> tiny in the scheme of things.
>> 
>> Follow the money? Apparently there is no money to follow!
>> 
>>> On July 5, 2025 at 16:11 [email protected] (John Levine via NANOG) 
>>> wrote:
>>> It appears that Michael Thomas via NANOG <[email protected]> said:  
>>>> Email doesn't even have that. Thunderbird, which is what I use, has
>>>> precisely *nothing* to say about DKIM/SPF/DMARC.   
>>> 
>>> Well, yeah. As you surely know as well as anyone, if a message is
>>> authenticated that tells you nothing about whether it's mail you want
>>> or mail that's malicious. For that you need a reputation system that
>>> knows something about the domain that's authenticated. That seems a lot
>>> easier to do at delivery time and put the bad ones in the Junk folder,
>>> or don't deliver them at all.
>>> 
>>>> Do you have any visibility into, say, MAAWG and why they don't take this
>>>> up as a standards effort?   
>>> 
>>> Honestly, they'd just laugh. It's not a new idea, and there is a great
>>> deal of experience that says asking users to make security decisions in
>>> the UI mostly adds confusion.
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, if you use Thunderbird, I don't think it'd be very
>>> hard to write a plugin that looks at the Authentication-Results:
>>> header and adds locks or skulls and crossbones to the message display.
>>> Try it, tell us how you like it.
>>> 
>>> You can start with this one:
>>> 
>>> https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/addon/dkim-verifier/
>>> 
>>> R's,
>>> John
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NANOG mailing list
>>> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/ZKODZNYV5ZDW322P6IU52G56SSYTCCWN/
>>>   
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/JZFJX3FAFGMQFDWNWTG3LWTIZIZIUUBB/

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/HXMHPZEYKHZILZB2MJRYKBJHB6SBN6V2/

Reply via email to