Re: whitelisting links (was Re: misconception in SPF)

On 12/10/2012 9:10 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
> Surely this would be a browser feature (or 'Internet Security Software'
> feature) rather than an email client feature.
>
> The email client will not necessarily have any access to web browser
> history.

Sorry. I was too cryptic.  My suggestion was a whitelist that is shared 
with the browser and the MUA, vetted by the user.  It's not about one 
agent calling the other but of a shared whitelist.

(Bitdefender seems to have a feature that is related, which provides 
very distinctive controls over sites that are used for payment, like 
banks, based on a special list of such sites.)



> The web browser should know that being called from an email client is
> 'different' from the user clicking on a bookmark or typing in a URL in
> the browser. Then, the browser could say to the user 'You've never
> accessed this site before, are you sure you want to do it?', or whatever

Development of the list could include various kinds of user 
consultation, yes.


> The problem is that to have any idea of reputation you'd have to go on
> the hostname, not the full URL,

right.


> So, the question is, is having a hostname reputation for the user better
> than having no reputation, or not? I'd say yes because it would probably
> catch 99% of the bad links that I see in phishing/spam, others would say
> no because it won't catch 100%.

+1

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net