On Wed 30/Aug/2023 14:14:41 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/30/2023 1:21 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Wed 30/Aug/2023 07:35:08 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 8:11 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/29/2023 7:46 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 8/29/23 9:02 PM, Dave Crocker wro
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 1:18 AM Laura Atkins
wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Aug 2023, at 19:07, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> Not that this is all that new a question, but I think it might be worthy
> of more (and maybe different focus)...
>
> When a message is used in a DKIM Replay Attack:
>
>1. It originate
On 8/30/2023 9:58 AM, Laura Atkins wrote:
On 30 Aug 2023, at 14:52, Grant Taylor
wrote:
On 8/30/23 12:35 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
And I've never understood why people get enamored of the idea of
relying on bad reputations to spot bad actors.
I think of it as the other way around;
> On 30 Aug 2023, at 14:52, Grant Taylor
> wrote:
>
> On 8/30/23 12:35 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> And I've never understood why people get enamored of the idea of relying on
>> bad reputations to spot bad actors.
>
> I think of it as the other way around; good reputation to spot good
On 8/30/23 12:35 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
And I've never understood why people get enamored of the idea of relying
on bad reputations to spot bad actors.
I think of it as the other way around; good reputation to spot good actors.
Much like a brand new domain is effectively neutral immedi
On 8/30/2023 1:21 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Wed 30/Aug/2023 07:35:08 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 8:11 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/29/2023 7:46 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 8/29/23 9:02 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Why not re-use the existing DKIM solution, just wi
On 8/29/2023 10:35 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 8:11 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/29/2023 7:46 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 8/29/23 9:02 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
Rather than doing it in a header field, though, could it be done
simply with a new tag?
I
> On 30 Aug 2023, at 09:21, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
> On Wed 30/Aug/2023 06:20:47 +0200 Steve Atkins wrote:
>>> On 30 Aug 2023, at 03:38, Grant Taylor
>>> wrote:
>>> On 8/29/23 3:15 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
Any attempt by senders to filter outbound emails based solely on content
On Wed 30/Aug/2023 06:20:47 +0200 Steve Atkins wrote:
On 30 Aug 2023, at 03:38, Grant Taylor
wrote:
On 8/29/23 3:15 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
Any attempt by senders to filter outbound emails based solely on content is
going to have a lot of false negatives and positives, wherever you decide to
On Wed 30/Aug/2023 07:35:08 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 8:11 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/29/2023 7:46 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 8/29/23 9:02 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Why not re-use the existing DKIM solution, just with a different
domain / set of keys?
Because
> On 29 Aug 2023, at 19:07, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> Not that this is all that new a question, but I think it might be worthy of
> more (and maybe different focus)...
>
> When a message is used in a DKIM Replay Attack:
>
> It originates from a domain name having good reputation
> It passes qu
11 matches
Mail list logo
