DKIMWL's dubious methodology.

[RW <rw...@googlemail.com>]

I got a spam yesterday that hit DKIMWL_WL_MED on the domain
bestchoicebrand.net. This domain was less that 24 hours old at the time
of scanning and has no A record or SPF TXT record.

I don't think a domain can have any meaningful good reputation in such a
short period of time, and IMO a valid SPF record should be a basic
precondition for listing.

Re: DKIMWL's dubious methodology.

[RW <rw...@googlemail.com>]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 19:45:38 +0000
Paul Stead wrote:

> Hi
> 
> bestchoicebrand.net is not and has not been listed on DKIMwl
> 
> Can you clarify who DKIM signed the email? Very likely to be
> amazonses.com or Google Apps SMTP?

Yes, I misread it, it has


   DKIM-Signature: ...d=bestchoicebrand-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com;


I didn't look too closely because I was mixing-up how these rules
actually work with how I would have preferred them to work, which is to
only use authenticated domains that align with the author domain.

Looking at my mail the DKIMWL TPs are overwhelmingly from author domains
and the FPs are mostly from   *.gappssmtp.com signatures.

Re: DKIMWL's dubious methodology.

[Paul Stead <pa...@zeninternet.co.uk>]

Hi

bestchoicebrand.net is not and has not been listed on DKIMwl

Can you clarify who DKIM signed the email? Very likely to be amazonses.com or Google Apps SMTP?

Paul

On 22/03/2019, 19:23, "RW" <rw...@googlemail.com> wrote:

    I got a spam yesterday that hit DKIMWL_WL_MED on the domain
    bestchoicebrand.net. This domain was less that 24 hours old at the time
    of scanning and has no A record or SPF TXT record.

    I don't think a domain can have any meaningful good reputation in such a
    short period of time, and IMO a valid SPF record should be a basic
    precondition for listing.






Paul Stead
Senior Engineer
Zen Internet

Re: DKIMWL's dubious methodology.

[Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>]

RW skrev den 2019-03-22 20:16:
> I got a spam yesterday that hit DKIMWL_WL_MED on the domain
> bestchoicebrand.net. This domain was less that 24 hours old at the time
> of scanning and has no A record or SPF TXT record.

hopefully listnings owners check now, could be listed wl_none ?

> I don't think a domain can have any meaningful good reputation in such 
> a
> short period of time, and IMO a valid SPF record should be a basic
> precondition for listing.

it should not be limited to dkim only, spamassassin should do this work 
with dmarc whitelist if ever comming :(

if only dkim is whitelisted it gives false possitives