Gmail and the via

I was hoping to have a detailed post up today about the conditions where gmail presents the user with a “via” but time seems to have gotten away from me. But I can give you the conclusions.

  1. A via is presented to the user when you have a DKIM pass and the domain in the d= does not match the domain in the visible from address. In this case the interface shows via the d= domain.
  2. A via is presented to the user when you have a SPF pass, no valid DKIM (either a fail or no signature at all) and the domain in the return path is different than the domain in the visible from address. In this case the interface shows via the SPF domain.

This is an issue for ESP customers who are letting ESPs sign on their behalf. If your ESP is signing with their own domain, or their own domain is present in the return path, then all your mail will be displayed with “via” in the gmail interface.
In order to not have a via showing, you need to have either the return path or the d= value within the same domain as your visible from address. There are two ways to do this. Probably the easiest is to delegate a subdomain to your ESP so they can manage the signing and keys for you. Alternatively, you can manage DKIM keys yourself and just have your ESP sign with the private key you give them.
I have heard that recipients can remove the via by replying to a message or by adding the sender to their address books. My testing did not show that either method was effective in removing the “via” from the display.
Tomorrow, the work that went into these rather simple recommendations.

Authentication Cheat Sheet
Quote of the day

Related Posts

DKIM implementation survey: prelim results

First off, I want to thank everyone who participated in the DKIM implementation survey. This week has been pretty hectic so far, so I haven’t had a chance to actually dig down into the data from the survey, but I thought I’d post some preliminary results.
The ESP survey had 45 respondents. 30% of those sent more than 15 million emails a month.
Of all the respondents: 40% are signing with Domain Keys, 51.1% are signing with DKIM.
Of all respondents: 79.5% are signing with Domain Keys and 78.8% are signing with DKIM to access services (whitelists or FBLs) provided by the ISPs.
50% of those not signing with Domain Keys are not doing so because customers have not requested it.  61% of those not signing with DKIM are not doing it because of technical difficulties with deployment.
The ISP survey had 16 respondents, with 37.5% handling less than 500,000 mailboxes and 18.8% handling more than 15 million mailboxes. 75% of respondents said they are not checking Domain Keys on inbound mail. 56% said they are not currently checking DKIM on inbound mail.
Only 10 ISPs answered the question if they plan to check either Domain Keys or DKIM.

Read More

Gmail reports spear phishing attack

No one, it seems, is immune from account compromise attempts. Today Google reported they had identified a systemic campaign to compromise Gmail accounts belonging to “senior U.S. government officials, Chinese political activists, officials in several Asian countries (predominantly South Korea), military personnel and journalists.”
Google offers a number of solutions for users, including the ability to add 2 factor authentication to your Gmail account. I strongly recommend anyone who uses Gmail to do this.
This isn’t a security blog, but email is one of the major vectors used to infect machines. We’ve seen numerous break ins targeting email senders and ESPs, resulting in customer and recipient data being stolen and then used for spam. Everyone who uses email needs to be aware of the risks and maintain their email account integrity. Be careful clicking links in emails. Be careful opening webpages. Keep your antivirus software up to date.
Everyone is a target.
 

Read More

Defending against the hackers of 1995

Passwords are convenient for the end user, but it’s too easy to lose control of them. People share them with other people. People write them down, where they can be read. People send them in email, and that email is easily intercepted. People’s web browsers store the passwords, so they can log in automatically. Worst of all, perhaps, people tend to use the same username and password at many different websites. If just one of those websites is compromised (or even run as a password collecting scam) then those passwords can be used to attack accounts at all of the others.
Two factor authentication that uses an uncopyable physical device (such as a cellphone or a security token) as a second factor mitigates most of these threats very effectively. Weaker two factor authentication using digital certificates is a little easier to misuse (as the user can share the certificate with others, or have it copied without them noticing) but still a lot better than a password.
Security problems solved, then?

Read More