Dňa 18. decembra 2023 16:00:17 UTC používateľ ml+mailop--- via mailop
napísal:
>On Mon, Dec 18, 2023, Paul Smith* via mailop wrote:
>> Amazon, etc. They send mail pretending to be from someth...@amazon.com.
>
>That's why DKIM can be useful for those who want to prevent forgeries.
From:
> That's why DKIM can be useful for those who want to prevent forgeries.
> Why should everyone else be forced to do that?
We all know email is forgeable, but no non-technical person has this
expectation. Slowly moving email to a non-forgeable future is a good idea if you
ask me, as it aligns with
Dnia 18.12.2023 o godz. 14:49:50 Paul Smith* via mailop pisze:
> Spam filters handle reputation of things. One thing they can do is
> track reputation of sender domains. When forgery is possible, then
> that means that spammers can piggy-back on the good reputation of
> big companies like Google,
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023, Paul Smith* via mailop wrote:
> DKIM (and SPF) aren't anti-spam measures, and have never been promoted as
> such. They're anti-forgery measures.
I know that -- which is why I don't use either (besides other reasons,
e.g., breaking existing mail mechanisms).
> spammers can
On 18/12/2023 10:18, ml+mailop--- via mailop wrote:
And it seems none of the extra requirements do anything against
spam, because the spammers can (and do, see above) easily implement
all of those.
DKIM (and SPF) aren't anti-spam measures, and have never been promoted
as such. They're
Hello,
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 01:01:58PM +0200, Taavi Eomäe via mailop wrote:
> > And it seems none of the extra requirements do anything against
> spam, because the spammers can (and do, see above) easily implement
> all of those.
>
> I get the impression you can't see the forest for the
> And it seems none of the extra requirements do anything against
spam, because the spammers can (and do, see above) easily implement
all of those.
I get the impression you can't see the forest for the trees. These
methods being easy to implement is exactly the goal. Once majority of
mail is
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023, Gellner, Oliver via mailop wrote:
> On 17.12.2023 at 21:48 Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
> > A bit off topic, but it is always amazing.. rejecting based on no DKIM?
> > It's like most new requirements, ever notice that the spammers are
> > implementing these
