Recent Posts

May 2014: The month in email

It’s been a busy and exciting month for us here.
Laura finished a multi-year project with M3AAWG, the Messaging, Malware and Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Group (look for the results to be published later this year) and continued working with clients on interesting delivery challenges and program opportunities. Steve focused on development on the next version release of Abacus, our flagship abuse desk tool, which will also be available later this year.
And as always, we had things to say about email.
The World of Spam and Email Best Practices
We started the month with a bit of a meta-discussion on senders’ fears of being labeled spammers, and reiterated what we always say: sending mail that some people don’t want doesn’t make you evil, but it is an opportunity to revisit your email programs and see if there are opportunities to better align your goals with the needs of people on your email lists. We outlined how we’ve seen people come around to this position after hitting spamtraps. That said, sometimes it is just evil. And it’s still much the same evil it’s been for over a decade.
We also wrote a post about reputation, which is something we get asked about quite frequently. We have more resources on the topic over at the WiseWords section of our site.
Gmail, Gmail, Gmail
Our friends over at Litmus estimate Gmail market share at 12%, which seems pretty consistent with the percentage of blog posts we devote to the topic, yes? We had a discussion of Campaign Monitor’s great Gmail interview, and offered some thoughts on why we continue to encourage clients to focus on engagement and relevance in developing their email programs. We also wrote a post about how Gmail uses filters, which is important for senders to understand as they create campaigns.
SMTP and TLS
Steve wrote extensively this month about the technical aspects of delivery and message security. This “cheat sheet” on SMTP rejections is extremely useful for troubleshooting – bookmark it for the next time you’re scratching your head trying to figure out what went wrong.
He also wrote a detailed explanation of how TLS encryption works with SMTP to protect email in transit, and followed that with additional information on message security throughout the life of the message. This is a great set of posts to explore if you’re thinking about security and want to understand potential vulnerabilities.
DKIM
Steve also wrote a series of posts about working with DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail), the specification for signing messages to identify and claim responsibility for messages. He started with a detailed explanation of DKIM Replay Attacks, which happens when valid email is forwarded or otherwise compromised by spammers, phishers or attackers. Though the DKIM signature persists (by design) through a forward, the DKIM specification restricts an attacker’s ability to modify the message itself. Steve’s post describes how senders can optimize their systems to further restrict these attacks. Another way that attackers attempt to get around DKIM restrictions is by injecting additional headers into the message, which can hijack a legitimately signed message. If you’re concerned about these sort of attacks (and we believe you should be), it’s worth learning more about DKIM Key Rotation to help manage this. (Also of note: we have some free DKIM management tools available in the WiseTools section of our site.)
As always, we’re eager to hear from you if there are topics you’d like us to cover in June.

DKIM Key Rotation

Several people have asked me about how to rotate DKIM keys in the past few days (as if you’re modifying anything to mitigate replay attacks, you need to invalidate the signatures of all the mail you sent before you made those changes).

DKIM and injected headers

If you look at the DKIM-Signature header in any piece of email signed with DKIM you’ll see that one of the fields it contains, the h= field, lists some email header names, for example:

DKIM replay attacks

Replay attacks on DKIM signed messages
When you receive an email validly signed with DKIM by example.com that might not mean that example.com sent the email to you, or that they even sent this email at all.
What it does tell you is that at some point in the past, example.com signed an email with exactly the same headers and body and sent it to someone. That’s often close enough to the same thing. But if that original recipient were to resend the email to you completely unchanged then the DKIM signature would still validate when you received it. That’s not a bug; it’s one of the design features of DKIM that it typically survives mail forwarding.
That original recipient could also forward the exact same email to a million of their closest friends, and the DKIM signature would validate at each of those million recipients ISPs. This is one form of a replay attack, and it isn’t something DKIM prevents.
DKIM doesn’t prevent replay, but does mitigate it
Completely eliminating replay attacks over SMTP is difficult – it’s inherently a store-and-forward protocol, so there’s no way to have the sender and recipient do any sort of handshake to ensure that a particular signature is only used once. It’s not unheard of for email to be delayed for days, and delays of hours aren’t unusual, so allowing a signature to be valid for only a few seconds after it’s sent won’t work. And the design requirement that DKIM signature survive forwarding means that it has to survive the final recipient’s email address not being the same as the email address the mail was originally sent to so you can’t include the envelope recipient in the signature.
So what does DKIM do to mitigate replay attacks? The answer to that is surprising – almost everything DKIM does is there to mitigate them. The DKIM signature depends on the body of the message, the subject line and the content of any other headers the sender chooses to include; changing any of that will invalidate the signature. That means that while anyone can grab a copy of an email sent by, for example, paypal and forward it on to someone else, if they modify the content at all it will no longer have paypal’s signature. So an attacker can’t just grab someone else’s signed email and replace it with modified content – and if they can’t do that, where’s the benefit to a spammer or phisher to replay a message?
But all that work is for naught if you allow the attacker to choose the content before you sign the message. There are several ways an attacker can do that, but one example that’s particularly relevant today is ESP trial accounts.
I’m stealing your reputation
If you allow anonymous signups for trial accounts that let a potential customer try out your system you’ll want to put very tight limits on how it can be used, so as to avoid spammers signing up and spamming through your servers. Maybe you’ll limit the number of email addresses the trial user can upload, or the number of emails they can send. At the most extreme you might even limit the trial account to sending mail solely to the trial users own (confirmed) email address.
But if an attacker can send even one piece of email they create through your trial account to themselves, and you sign that email, they can take it and send it to a million recipients – and it’ll still have your DKIM signature on it so it’ll use your reputation to avoid filters and end up in the recipients inbox. And then the recipients will report it as spam, and all that spam will be counted against the reputation associated with your DKIM identifier. If you share a DKIM identifier (“d=”) across all your customers that could cause all your customer mail to start being rejected or sent to the spam folder. (Even if you don’t it could still affect your delivery negatively, as spam filtering systems – both automated and human – sometimes aren’t entirely rational or predictable).
Spam that’s sent like this will be a little “off”, compared to legitimate email – the To: field won’t have the email address of the recipient, for instance, and there’ll be no personalization in the Subject or body of the message. It’s no worse than most spam, and it’s more than balanced out by being able to hijack someone else’s reputation.
So if you provide any way for unvetted non-customers to send email through your systems you should consider adding some DKIM limitations to the constraints you already have on that mail path. Not signing with DKIM at all avoids the problem altogether, but also means you can’t demonstrate your DKIM prowess to legitimate potential customers. You might want to sign with a DKIM d= domain that’s different to your production signatures, perhaps even a completely different top level domain to avoid any risk of confusion (but don’t try and hide that it’s your domain – that’s what spammers do).
Other operational mistakes
There are some grubby corners of the email and DKIM specs that sometimes interact to cause other holes that this sort of reputation hijacker can exploit. I’ll talk about header duplication tomorrow.

Spot the unsub

A new game! Spot the unsub! Our first challenge is the footer from a major software company. How long does it take for you to to find the unsub link?

What’s even more annoying is that I never actually subscribed to mail from this company. A few years ago I was doing some work for them and they required I set up an account on their cloud service so they could share docs with me. Last month, they started emailing me as “a customer.” Yeah. No.

The more things change

I was doing some research about the evolution of the this-is-spam button for a blog article. In the middle of it, I found an old NY Times report about spam from 2003.

Yahoo FBL problems

Multiple ESPs are reporting that the volume of Yahoo! FBL reports have slowed to a trickle over the last 24 or so hours. While we don’t know exactly what is going on yet, or if it’s on track for being fixed, there does seem to be a problem.
There has been some ongoing maintenance issues with the Yahoo! FBL, where requests for updates and changes weren’t being handled in a timely fashion. Informed speculation was the resources needed to fix the FBL modification weren’t available. The interesting question is if Y! will commit the resources to fix the FBL. I could make arguments either way. But Yahoo! gets the benefit of the this-is-spam button whether or not they send a complaint back to the sender.
5/21 5pm: Both Yahoo and Return Path (who administer the Y! FBL) are aware of the problem and are working on it.
5/21 6:30pm: Reports are flowing again according to multiple sources.

Email templates using Grunt

A Grunt workflow for designing and testing HTML email templates with SCSS.

It's about the spam

Tell someone they have hit a spamtrap and they go through a typical reaction cycle.
Denial: I didn’t hit a trap! I only send opt-in mail. There must be some mistake. I’m a legitimate company, not a spammer!
Anger: What do you mean that I can’t send mail until I’ve fixed the problem? There is no problem! You can’t stop me from mailing. I’m following the law. My mail is important. I’ll sue.
Bargaining: What if I just send mail to some recipients? What if I hire an email hygiene company to remove traps from my list?
Acceptance: What can I do to make sure the people I’m mailing actually want to be on my list?
Overall, my problem with the focus on spamtraps (and complaints to a lesser extent) is that these metrics are proxies. Spamtraps are a way to objectively monitor incoming email. Mail sent to spamtraps is, demonstrably, sent without permission of the address owner. This doesn’t mean all mail from the same source is spam, but there is proof at least some of the mail is spam.
If there is enough bad mail on that list, then reworking the subscription process may be necessary to fix delivery.

Emoji – older than you think

It might just be random 17th Century punctuation, but this poem from 1648 certainly seems to be using a smiley face emoji.
(OK, it’s probably not intentional, but it’s lovely intersection of the emoji and the word.)