4 ms·
I have mixed feelings about this. > Not all affected email will necessarily be dangerous. To me, it sounds like they're saying that most of the "affected emai
by jlgaddis 11y ago
I have mixed feelings about this.
> Not all affected email will necessarily be dangerous.
To me, it sounds like they're saying that most of the "affected email" WILL be dangerous -- just not ALL of it -- and that's highly misleading, of course.
Overall, though, I think this will be a good thing if it pushes more organizations ("mail senders") to implement opportunistic encryption for incoming mail and SPF/DKIM signing for outgoing mail.
That seems to be what they're referring to; that is, sending to an MX host that doesn't support opportunistic encryption) and/or receiving mail that doesn't have a valid DKIM signature. Did anyone else understand this differently?
- semi-extrinsic 11y agoThis will be popcorn time for those using Gmail for business. I have a plugin in Thunderbird that shows the DKIM status of incoming email as gray/red/green, meaning no DKIM/DKIM invalid/DKIM valid. Most of the email I get from business accounts (usually on Exchange), including those from the company I work at, have no DKIM. (Yes, I've complained to the ITsec dept. They don't even have SPF set up...) Of the rest, surprisingly many have invalid DKIM sigs.