3 ms·
The difference between your example and the article's is that in the article's example the emails are signed with DKIM and SPF by google which marks them as leg
by revicon 10y ago
The difference between your example and the article's is that in the article's example the emails are signed with DKIM and SPF by google which marks them as legit emails vs your example which is not signed.
- gcr 10y agoDKIM and SPF are intended only to authenticate the originating saver, not the actual user account from the originating saver. To my knowledge, there is no reliable mechanism (beyond PGP and the web of trust) for authenticating that a certain sender actually sent an email message.
- xoa 10y ago>To my knowledge, there is no reliable mechanism (beyond PGP and the web of trust) for authenticating that a certain sender actually sent an email message. You can use S/MIME as well, which has its own tradeoffs like all PKI but also somewhat more widespread and mildly more seamless support. But your basic, unless the e-mail is cryptographically signed in some manner there's no significant authentication for email. If cryptographic signing was more widespread then issues with spam, phishing/spearphishing, etc could be significantly reduced simply by virtue of elimination of spoofing. That day does not seem likely to come any time in the foreseeable future however, given that if anything end-to-end cryptography in email (be it for signing or encryption) seems to be going backwards, not forwards. It'll remain an irritating situation for a long time to come.
- discreditable 10y agoDMARC utilizes DKIM/SPF to validate the From: account. In short, if I send from foo@bar.com, then my message must also pass their SPF/DKIM policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC
- gcr 10y ago(pardon, meant to write "originating server" above)