[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BF9651D8732ED311A61D00105A9CA3150EEA8A02@berkeley.gci.com>
From: lsawyer at gci.com (Leif Sawyer)
Subject: Improving E-mail security...
Bengt Ruusunen writes:
>
> Hello,
>
> As everybody knows that recent viruses spread via sending
> spoofed 'sender address'.
>
> fex.
>
> I am a person 'someone@...eone.com' and got so called 'return
> mail' from 'someone@...eiving.organisation.com' telling that mail
> sent by me (which I never sent in a first place) cannot be delivered.
> Obviously containg somekind malware as an attachment.
>[...]
> - E-mail receiving server could check that 'very first original'
> From: line and if it is same than the receiver address ie.
> 'someone@...eone.com'
>
> Perform an check to see if the 'sender identification' ie.
> salted public key, GUID or something (X-Authenticated-Guid:
> #0a845d299ca340087140) exists in mail header.
>
> Delivery should be done only if an 'sender identification'
> exist and the key matches.
What about mail MUA/servers which silently drop your optional
X-Authenticated-Guid: header? You would be trashing every
mail from those clients.
Now if you used this in tandem with a spam filter software
like SpamAssassin, you could use it to re-weight the probability
of the response.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 2208 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20030826/1bbd4450/smime.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists