Maybe We Should Just Trash All Authenticated Email
from the one-way-to-fix-spam dept
For the most part, sender authentication techniques have been a joke. The early adopters were spammers themselves. While some people claimed this meant that those spammers were "outed" it doesn't seem like anyone actually did much about them. Now, though, a marketing trade group is requiring its members to start using sender authentication techniques in any marketing emails. While this may seem like a way to further give these authentication systems legitimacy, it might actually do the opposite. Suddenly, all the marketing messages that people get will be authenticated as well -- and since many people consider even these more "legitimate" messages as spam, it may just reach a point where an authenticated message is an indicator that the email message is not wanted.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is only a problem if...
The email authication is quite important but just like SSL doesn't create trust it only allows for trust to be maintained.
ie. if a spammer sends you an email you can verify that it came from the spammer, but this is no reason to trust the spammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You should know better
There is some overlap between that and the spam world, but not much. I think a lot of big companies want to use it to ensure that nobody abuses their domain name and/or trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You should know better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You should know better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You should know better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You should know better
spammers churn throught servers by the thousands - constantly buying new blocks of IPs and domain names. the black list will ALWAYS be behind the curve, it is impossible to catch up. you will ALWAYS receive spam.
sender authentication is a complete waste of time and resources and only:
1) helps the spammers
2) prevents more legit mail from being delivered (stupid aol)
not a difficult concept!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You should know better
Set your mail server to only accept authicated emails, then block emails that come from domains owned by spammers.
Although, SenderID's little computational puzzles are a much better idea for preventing spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You should know better
oh, ok, then i'll block all email from servers owned by spammers - because that's not a huge moving target or anything.
the problem won't get fixed. use a junk mail filter and get on with your lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You should know better
Their main anti-spam impact could be indirect, because they will make it more difficult to recruit botnets which are apparantly the source of most spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]