[ietf-dkim] on DKIM as an anti-spam measure
John R Levine
johnl at iecc.com
Tue Aug 16 21:53:09 PDT 2005
> "this message is interpersonal business correspondence that is
> manually sent by a human to at most N recipients" (for some constant
> N, say 20)
> "this message is advertising for products in categories A, B, C"
> "this message is related to a particular business transaction"
> "this message is related to an ongoing business relationship"
> "I will pay you $x for reading this message"
> "this message contains sexually-explicit content"
Yeah, this is the same sort of stuff that Lumos was pushing. Like I said,
recipients don't care. If the sender has a good reputation, they'll take
all the mail, if the sender has a bad reputation, they'll dump all of it.
Lumos was backed by just about every company in the bulk mail sending
industry, and it got no traction with ISPs or other recipients. Zero.
Zip. Nada. This approach is a proven failure. Why haven't you done a
little research into prior efforts to find out what's already been tried
and failed? Lumos wasn't exactly a secret.
> I see plenty of incentives. Lots of people hate some company, some
> organization, or some body. Maybe Al Queda wants to discredit the
> Republican party by resending lots of campaign messages to unwilling
> recipients. Maybe some bent-out-of-shape open source advocate wants
> to discredit Microsoft by a similar method. Maybe some bent-out-of-
> shape operating system purveyor wants to discredit open source
> advocates. Maybe some right wing nutcases want to discredit liberals.
How much mail in those categories have you gotten in the past year? Me
neither. What is the point of concocting implausible scenarios unlike
what people actually do with e-mail?
> > If a sender has a good reputation, recipients will take all of their
> > mail. If it has a bad reputation, they'll reject it.
> I don't think so. I think lots of recipients will want to
> distinguish transaction correspondence from other correspondence from
> a particular business.
How many people do you know who do that today? Me neither. I know
companies doing mail sender certification that were prepared to offer
separate data for transaction mail and list mail, and no recipients wanted
to use them differently so there wasn't any point. It's easy to imagine
complex scenarios about what people might do, but don't. What is the
benefit of doing so?
> > I realize that it is theoretically possible that there could be
> > senders that send mail that is accurately labelled as UBE, but I have
> > trouble understanding why anyone would do it, since recipients would
> > still reject it all. Why demand a system to support scenarios that
> > aren't going to happen?
> This sounds like another "all recipients are alike argument". I
> don't see things that way. I don't believe that all or even nearly
> all recipients will want to reject all advertising.
Sigh. Since it should be obvious if you read the material you quoted
that's not what I said, (hint: UBE != all advertising) I don't see much
point in continuing this discussion. Good night.
More information about the ietf-dkim