Re: SPF/DKIM/DMARC et.al.: REALLY LONG [was: is it just me or...]

[Michael Thomas via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

On 7/6/25 2:05 PM, Barry Shein via NANOG wrote:
> So all I'm saying is we have to start thinking more about disrupting
> spammers' economics and less about designing sharper razor wire
> fences.
Really? Why? I rarely get spam (UCE) these days through my Google linked 
accounts, and haven't for years. I assume most of the major mailbox 
providers need to keep up with Google, so their customers probably 
aren't getting a lot of spam either. For the mailbox providers, it's 
just a cost of doing business, and reducing Google's cost of doing 
business isn't very high up on my list of concerns.

I suspect that the same is true of enterprise mailboxes as well since if 
the anti-spam vendors couldn't keep up, it would give more incentive to 
outsource their mail to somebody who could. And again, reducing their 
cost of doing business isn't very high up on my list of concerns.

So who exactly is having this spam problem these days? I suppose if 
you're running sendmail and spamassassin it might be bad (I personally 
gave up on that) but that's in the long tail of people being ornery 
rugged email individualists. Again, not something very high up on my 
list of concerns.

Is there some other large set of mailboxes that I'm missing here? 
Ideally mailboxes that I would care about their economics?

That is distinctly different than phishing and its social engineering 
aspect. Doubly so with spear-phishing which by its nature, the content 
is likely to look like legitimate email. Phishing can be catastrophic 
and will always be a concern. This is where the meta information of 
authn, etc, become more important in the fight to combat it, but that's 
different than UCE.

Mike

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/EAHHNWMCOBBEHZEHKTHSJTUY7PHNOECB/