[ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?

[Al Iverson]

On 4/30/08, Arvel Hathcock <arvel.hathcock at altn.com> wrote:


> > Well, now we have another question -- who's going to be using ADSP, mail
> > system operators or end users?  It's always been my impression that the
> > main audience is MTA operators, who will use it in filtering decisions.
>
> MTA operators will be using/deploying ADSP.  End-users are the intended
> beneficiary (as is the case with _all_ filtering systems).  The
> motivation driving MTA operators to deploy ADSP is end-user protection.
>
> > If it's for end users, my experience says that they are equally likely to
> > be fooled by info at accounts-bigbank.com, which would suggest we've been
> > wasting our time.
>
> I agree with the first part of what you've said but the second part does
> not follow logically.  One can not claim that because we fail to protect
> a user completely we therefore aren't able to provide any protection at
> all and have thus wasted our time.  ADSP isn't attempting to solve the
> accounts-bigbank.com problem.  But it does solve the foo.bigbank.com
> problem.  This is wonderful news and a welcome step forward.

I would love to hear a little more from you on scenarios in which the
limited treewalking functionality would benefit you or your receiver
customers. The more specific the better. What potential deliver/not
deliver decisions are made and based on what criteria.

I think I'm looking to understand what you get out of that, versus
what you might get out of "no treewalking functionality, but I reject
non-resolvable FQDNs." It seems like it might be pretty similar. I'm
wondering if that's true.

Al Iverson

-- 
Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com
News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com
My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com   --   Chicago, IL, USA
Remove "lists" from my email address to reach me faster and directly.