Hi Murray,
At 15:37 01-09-2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>The question I have for those of you that have read this far has to
>do with data you think might be useful to develop reputation about a
>DKIM signing domain. It's obvious we need to store information
>about signatures and messages, but specifically what information is
>critical (and what can be purged) is the question.
>
>So far it's clear to me that we don't need to continue to track
>which header fields were signed and which ones changed between
>signing and verifying in order to compute a signer's reputation, so
>all of that will be dropped. Also, since the revised DKIM RFC is
>dropping support of the "g=" key tag, those columns in the
>signatures table are being removed.
Details such as header fields being signed are not relevant in
determining the reputation of the identifier.
>I'm also considering dropping these columns from the messages table:
>
>adsp_found int unsigned not null,
>adsp_unknown int unsigned not null,
>adsp_all int unsigned not null,
>adsp_discardable int unsigned not null,
>adsp_fail int unsigned not null,
>mailing_list int unsigned not null,
The ADSP data is only useful for local policy decisions, e.g. discard
the message. Given how incorrect way ADSP is advertised, I would not use it.
Wouldn't it be better to keep the mailing_list data?
Regards,
-sm
Received on Thu Sep 08 2011 - 06:20:43 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Mon Oct 29 2012 - 23:33:12 PST