Re: DKIM and DMARC, Email explained from first principles

> But I believe I made my point clear: that (the same) people can end up
using
> the DKIM in exactly the opposite manner, for the simple reason that they
see
> DKIM used more by unwanted mail, than not,

It seems to me you can make the same claim for almost any feature of email
(or anything else) that is used by both the good and bad guys.  "Most of
the mail we receive that uses multipart/related comes from good/bad guys,
so I will/won't block it."  The fact that others are doing things stupidly
isn't a good reason for the rest of us not to do them intelligently.  If it
were, it would be time to give up on email altogether.

On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 4:28 PM Sam Varshavchik <[email protected]>
wrote:

> John Levine writes:
>
> > According to Sam Varshavchik  <[email protected]>:
> > >I understand, very well, what the intent of DKIM is.
> > >
> > >However, it is what it is. If I observe what the practical reality of
> the
> > >past or current usage of DKIM is, then this speaks for itself.
> >
> > I honestly do not undersatand what your point is.  It sounds like
> you're
> > saying
> > that since it is not a magic FUSSP, it must be useless, but that would
> be
> > dumb
> > so I doubt that's it.
> >
> > For example, do you believe that people whitelist mail using DKIM
> > signatures from signers with good reputations?  Because we do.
>
> I'm sure that's the case.
>
> But I believe I made my point clear: that (the same) people can end up
> using
> the DKIM in exactly the opposite manner, for the simple reason that they
> see
> DKIM used more by unwanted mail, than not, and I explained why that
> turned
> out to be: a much higher adoption rate of DKIM by mail outsourcing
> providers
> than by other users. And when you are seeing most of your bad mail come
> from
> third party mail providers, then the combination of the two factors turns
> DKIM into a spam indication.
>
> Again, I am not passing judgement or arguing DKIM's lofty goals. I
> understand what they are, what DKIM is, and its purported use cases. It's
> really no different than judging the presence of
>
> X-PHP-Originating-Script: 33:SimpleMailInvoker.php
>
> or
>
> X-Mailer: PHPMailer
>
> as also a high spam indication. I am struggling to find any message in my
> archive with those two headers that's not spam. Does this simple
> observation
> pass any judgement on those two fine products' stated use cases? No, it
> does
> not. But, again, in the real world things don't always work according to
> plan. And, all I'm saying, is that some may find DKIM-Signature: to be
> awfully similar to those two.
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-smtp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
>

_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp