Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Email spoofing

Email spoofing is a deceptive technique in which malicious actors forge the sender information in an email message, such as the "From" address or display name, to impersonate a legitimate or trusted source. This manipulation exploits the (SMTP), the foundational standard for email transmission, which lacks inherent mechanisms to verify the authenticity of the sender's identity. By altering email headers—the that includes routing and sender details—attackers can bypass basic filters and deceive recipients into believing the email is genuine. The practice dates back to the early days of email in the 1970s but gained prominence in the 1990s with the rise of phishing scams, such as early attempts to impersonate America Online (AOL) accounts. Common methods include simple header forgery using scripts or tools to mimic trusted domains (e.g., changing "bank.com" to "b4nk.com"), as well as more sophisticated approaches like creating lookalike domains or combining spoofing with social engineering tactics. For instance, attackers may pose as corporate executives in "CEO fraud" schemes to authorize fraudulent wire transfers, or distribute malware via spoofed notifications from shipping companies. These techniques often evade spam filters because the forged sender appears reputable, enabling attacks like phishing, ransomware delivery, or business email compromise (BEC). The risks associated with email spoofing are significant, encompassing financial losses, data breaches, and for individuals and organizations alike. Recipients tricked by spoofed emails may unwittingly disclose sensitive credentials, click malicious links leading to infection, or comply with fraudulent requests, as seen in IRS-reported W-2 scams that combine spoofing with wire . Businesses face heightened threats from BEC attacks, where spoofed executive emails result in unauthorized fund transfers, while broader campaigns can lead to or network compromises. On a systemic level, spoofing undermines in email as a communication medium and contributes to the proliferation of cyber threats, with attackers leveraging it as a foundational step in more complex operations. To mitigate email spoofing, organizations and users rely on email authentication protocols such as (SPF), which verifies authorized sending servers; (DKIM), which provides digital signatures for message integrity; and Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC), which builds on the former two to enforce policies and report failures. Additional defenses include inspecting email headers for inconsistencies (e.g., via tools in email clients like Gmail's "Show original"), deploying advanced email security gateways with machine learning-based filtering, and conducting regular user training to recognize suspicious indicators such as mismatched sender details or urgent language. While no single measure eliminates the risk entirely, combining these technical and behavioral strategies significantly reduces the success rate of spoofing attempts.

Fundamentals

Definition and Basics

Email spoofing is the of an message's , typically the "From" address or display name, to make it appear as if the originates from a trusted source. This technique relies on the (SMTP), which does not require authentication of the 's identity, allowing attackers to manipulate headers such as "From," "Reply-To," or "" during transmission. Unlike legitimate routing, spoofing bypasses verification, enabling deception but not necessarily altering the message body or attachments. It differs from related attacks like , which may incorporate spoofing but focuses on social engineering to extract .

Historical Development

Email spoofing emerged in the early 1980s alongside the development of the (SMTP), standardized in 821 in 1982, which allowed senders to freely specify the "MAIL FROM" field without any authentication mechanism to verify the origin. This design choice, intended for simplicity in academic and research networks like , enabled early exploits where attackers forged sender addresses to impersonate trusted sources, though such incidents were initially limited to experimental demonstrations in closed networks. The first documented description of a phishing technique involving email spoofing appeared in 1987, detailed in a paper and presentation at the International HP Users Group (Interex) , where the method was outlined as a way to trick users into revealing credentials by forging email headers. By the , as the commercialized, spoofing proliferated in campaigns; senders began routinely forging "From" addresses to evade rudimentary filters and bypass open relays, contributing to the explosion of unsolicited bulk that overwhelmed early infrastructure. In the , email spoofing became integral to attacks, with large-scale campaigns in 2003 targeting e-commerce platforms like and through spoofed emails that mimicked legitimate notifications to harvest user data. The U.S. explicitly prohibited deceptive header information, including spoofing, aiming to regulate commercial email, but its enforcement limitations allowed the practice to persist amid rising threats. Key events underscored the risks, such as the 2004 worm, which propagated via emails with spoofed "From" addresses to disguise its malicious attachments and infect millions of systems. The 2010s saw spoofing evolve into sophisticated threats like business email compromise (BEC), with the FBI issuing a 2016 alert on a dramatic surge in such scams, where attackers impersonated executives using forged emails to authorize fraudulent wire transfers, resulting in billions in global losses. In response, , introduced in 2012, gained traction as a ; adoption spiked following major breaches and regulatory pushes, such as the 2024 and bulk sender requirements, doubling implementation rates among top domains to better detect and block spoofed messages.

Technical Mechanisms

How Spoofing Occurs

Email spoofing occurs primarily through the manipulation of the (SMTP), which governs email transmission between servers. In SMTP, the sender's identity is specified via the MAIL FROM command, which defines the envelope sender address used for routing and error notifications. This command allows the client to declare any arbitrary address without requiring , as the protocol does not mandate verification of the claimant's identity. A key distinction exists between envelope spoofing and header spoofing. The sender, set by the MAIL FROM command, is invisible to recipients and handles logistics, while the From: header in the message body—governed by 5322—displays the apparent sender to the user. Both can be forged independently: the envelope via the MAIL command and the header within the DATA command's content, exploiting SMTP's lack of built-in to create mismatches or false identities. Attackers commonly leverage various vectors to execute spoofing. These include open mail relays—misconfigured SMTP servers that forward emails without verifying the sender—compromised legitimate servers, botnets of infected machines, and misconfigured relay permissions on authorized mail servers. Such vectors enable unauthorized transmission by bypassing origin checks. Tools for spoofing range from manual methods to automated scripts. Manual forging can be performed using to directly interact with an SMTP server on port 25, issuing commands to simulate a client session. For automation, libraries like Python's smtplib allow programmatic construction of SMTP transactions, where the MAIL FROM is set to a spoofed address before sending the message content. A typical workflow involves the attacker establishing a connection to a vulnerable SMTP server and executing the following sequence:
HELO [example.com](/page/Example.com)
MAIL FROM:<[email protected]>
RCPT TO:<[email protected]>
[DATA](/page/Data)
From: Spoofed Sender <[email protected]>
[Subject](/page/Subject): Test Message

This is the body.
.
QUIT
This process initiates the transaction with a greeting (HELO), specifies the forged envelope sender, identifies the recipient, transmits the message (including a matching or differing From header), and terminates the session. The absence of sender validation in base SMTP permits the email to propagate as if originating from the claimed source.

Relevant Email Protocols

The (SMTP), standardized in RFC 5321, forms the core mechanism for transmitting email messages across the but inherently lacks built-in sender authentication, permitting attackers to forge the envelope sender address specified in the MAIL FROM command. This design choice, rooted in SMTP's origins as a trust-based system, allows unauthorized entities to inject messages with falsified origins without verification during transit. The (MIME), outlined in RFCs 2045 through 2049, extend SMTP's capabilities to support content and non-ASCII text in bodies and headers, yet these features can be exploited for obfuscating spoofed message elements. Attackers may manipulate MIME structures, such as embedding encoded headers or attachments, to evade detection while concealing forged sender details or malicious payloads within legitimate-looking formats. Protocols for email retrieval, including Post Office Protocol version 3 (POP3) as defined in 1939 and (IMAP) in 3501, play no direct role in spoofing during transmission but are impacted by the arrival of forged messages on receiving servers. Users accessing inboxes via POP3 or IMAP encounter these spoofed emails as if authentic, potentially leading to unintended interactions with deceptive content. Additionally, the (DNS) facilitates resolution of domain names in email addresses, including those spoofed by attackers to mimic trusted sources by selecting similar-looking domain names. Early iterations of SMTP, predating widespread adoption of , did not mandate (TLS), exposing transmissions to man-in-the-middle attacks where intermediaries could intercept and alter sender information. Prior to the , SMTP servers commonly operated as open relays—unrestricted forwarders that accepted mail from any source—facilitating widespread spoofing and spam propagation until configurations were hardened around 2003. Subsequent evolutions, such as RFC 6531's extension for internationalized email addresses, introduce support for non-ASCII characters including , which heightens spoofing risks through homograph attacks where visually similar characters enable impersonation. This allows attackers to craft addresses that appear identical to legitimate ones in certain displays, exploiting DNS resolution of internationalized names (IDNs).

Malicious Uses

Phishing Attacks

Email spoofing plays a central role in attacks by allowing attackers to forge the sender's address, making malicious emails appear to originate from trusted entities such as banks, government agencies, or colleagues, thereby increasing the likelihood that recipients will click on embedded malicious links or open attachments that lead to theft or infection. This exploits the inherent trust users place in familiar domains, often bypassing initial skepticism and prompting immediate action. In spear-phishing, attackers personalize spoofed emails using on specific targets, crafting messages from seemingly legitimate addresses to solicit sensitive information or actions, such as updating account details on fake sites. , a more targeted variant, focuses on high-profile individuals like executives, employing high-fidelity forgeries that mimic internal communications or authority figures to extract financial approvals or proprietary data. These tactics rely on email header manipulation to evade basic filters, combining technical spoofing with social engineering for precision strikes. Phishing via spoofing leverages psychological manipulation to override rational judgment, invoking urgency through threats of account suspension or immediate loss, authority by impersonating superiors or officials, and visual mimicry of legitimate email layouts to build false credibility. For instance, a spoofed CEO email demanding wire transfers exploits hierarchical obedience, while fear-based prompts like "urgent security alerts" from forged bank domains pressure hasty responses. These elements target cognitive biases, such as the scarcity principle and compliance with perceived authority, making victims more susceptible to deception. According to the 2023 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report, phishing contributed to 36% of analyzed data breaches, with email serving as the predominant delivery vector for such social engineering exploits; however, the 2025 report shows a decline to 14%. Since 2022, the integration of has evolved spoofing tactics, enabling automated generation of grammatically flawless, contextually tailored phishing content that evades detection tools and enhances personalization at scale. Variants of spoofing-enabled phishing include email-initiated vishing, where forged messages prompt targets to call provided numbers for "verification," leading to voice-based credential harvesting, and smishing follow-ups, in which spoofed emails direct users to malicious SMS links for further exploitation. These hybrid approaches extend the beyond email, using initial spoofed correspondence to build trust for multi-channel deception.

Spam and Malware Propagation

Email spoofing plays a central role in the dissemination of unsolicited bulk , or , by allowing attackers to conceal the true origin of messages and evade detection mechanisms. Spammers frequently forge the sender's to mimic legitimate sources, such as banks or agencies, thereby bypassing content-based filters that rely on scoring of known malicious domains. This technique enables high-volume campaigns where attackers register or hijack random, short-lived domains—often generated algorithmically—to distribute millions of messages without triggering blacklists associated with repeated use of the same . For instance, disposable domains with randomized subdomains or top-level variations are commonly employed to maintain delivery rates while avoiding by filters. Additionally, spammers manipulate the Reply-To header independently of the spoofed From field, directing any user responses to the attacker's controlled inbox to harvest further data or perpetuate scams, such as fake invoice disputes leading to downloads. Spoofing also facilitates the propagation of through bulk vectors, embedding trojans or links in attachments disguised as routine updates or alerts. The banking trojan, first identified in 2014, was disrupted in January 2021 but re-emerged in November 2021 and remains active as of 2025, exemplifies this by using spoofed emails to deliver polymorphic payloads that evaded antivirus detection, often masquerading as threaded replies in ongoing conversations to increase open rates. Similarly, distributors leverage spoofed messages with links to phony software patches, tricking recipients into executing malicious code that encrypts files and demands payment. These infections can overlap briefly with tactics, where credential-harvesting is deployed via spoofed lures to steal login details alongside system compromise. , such as those powered by compromised endpoints, amplify this distribution by coordinating spoofed sends from diverse IP addresses, making attribution difficult and sustaining campaigns at scale. The scale of spoofing-driven spam underscores its pervasive impact, with spam comprising 47.27% of global traffic in 2024 according to Kaspersky's analysis of billions of messages. Economic incentives fuel this activity, as models reward spammers for driving traffic to sites via spoofed promotions, often sourcing recipient lists from marketplaces where harvested emails are sold for pennies per thousand to enable widespread propagation. These lists, compiled from breaches and , allow low-cost, high-volume sends that monetize through fraudulent commissions or malware-as-a-service rentals, perpetuating a cycle of automated abuse.

System Impacts

Effects on Mail Servers

Email spoofing imposes significant operational burdens on mail servers by generating excessive volumes of invalid or malicious traffic that must be processed and filtered. Spoofed emails, which forge sender addresses to bypass basic checks, often result in —automated bounce messages sent by receiving servers to the fabricated return paths. This backscatter floods legitimate mail servers with non-delivery reports (NDRs), consuming substantial CPU and memory resources as servers attempt to handle and generate these responses. Additionally, the initial influx of spoofed messages requires intensive scanning and verification, leading to bandwidth exhaustion and demands for suspicious activity. The prevalence of spoofing exacerbates delivery challenges for legitimate communications. Anti-spoofing filters, designed to detect forged headers, can produce false positives when legitimate s undergo modifications, such as those introduced by mailing lists or legitimate forwarding services. These alterations may cause servers to flag and reject valid messages, resulting in delayed or failed deliveries that disrupt normal email flow. For instance, emails from authenticated domains might fail or DKIM checks due to intermediary changes, forcing administrators to manually intervene or adjust configurations. Security vulnerabilities arise from spoofing's exploitation of misconfigured , particularly open relays—SMTP servers that accept mail from any source without . Attackers leverage these relays to route spoofed campaigns, turning the server into an unwitting vector and inviting by global reputation services. Such blacklisting can severely impair outbound email deliverability for all users on the affected . Furthermore, large-scale spoofed waves mimic DDoS attacks by overwhelming servers with traffic spikes, potentially halting operations and exposing the infrastructure to further . Quantitative insights highlight the scale: spam emails, frequently enabled by spoofing techniques, comprised approximately 47% of global email traffic in 2024, translating to billions of daily messages that strain resources. alone can amplify this load, compounding processing overhead. These burdens incur direct costs in and storage, often exceeding operational budgets for smaller providers. Over the long term, persistent spoofing erodes confidence in email infrastructure, as repeated incidents of overload and necessitate costly upgrades to protocols and hardware. This shift drives widespread adoption of advanced filtering and monitoring systems, fundamentally altering architectures to prioritize over legacy compatibility.

Consequences for Recipients

Recipients of spoofed emails are exposed to direct personal harms, including and substantial financial losses from scams. Phishing attacks leveraging spoofed sender addresses often deceive individuals into disclosing , such as credentials or financial details, enabling thieves to perpetrate broader . For example, scams impersonating family members in emergencies can prompt urgent wire transfers or purchases, resulting in average losses of $33,915 per elder fraud victim as reported in 2023. Additionally, victims frequently experience emotional distress, including anxiety, , and feelings of shame, with studies indicating that 40% of online scam victims report heightened stress and 28% note depressive symptoms following the incident. Organizations receiving spoofed emails encounter severe risks, such as data breaches triggered by employees clicking malicious or attachments, which can compromise sensitive internal systems and . Spoofing corporate addresses in fraudulent communications also inflicts , as recipients may attribute or harmful content to the legitimate entity, eroding trust and potentially leading to lost business opportunities. The broader ramifications include an erosion of email's perceived reliability, prompting individuals and teams to avoid or delay email-based communications in favor of alternative channels, which disrupts workflows. This contributes to productivity losses from alert fatigue, where constant scrutiny of suspicious messages overwhelms users, reducing responsiveness to genuine threats and increasing error rates in threat detection. In the United States, spoofing-related , particularly through business email compromise, resulted in $2.77 billion in losses in 2024, according to the FBI's . Reports of issues linked to scams have risen since 2020, correlating with increased scam prevalence during the pandemic. Certain groups are disproportionately vulnerable, including the elderly, who reported $4.8 billion in losses in 2024. Small es also suffer heightened impacts, facing a 70% weekly probability of email compromise attempts and receiving the highest rates of targeted malicious emails, often lacking robust awareness and resources to mitigate risks.

Prevention Strategies

Authentication Technologies

To combat email spoofing, several standardized authentication technologies have been developed to verify the legitimacy of email senders by checking the alignment between the claimed domain and the actual sending infrastructure or cryptographic signatures. These mechanisms primarily address vulnerabilities in the (SMTP), which lacks built-in sender verification. Key protocols include the Sender Policy Framework (SPF), DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM), Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC), and Brand Indicators for Message Identification (BIMI), each building on DNS records and headers to enable domain owners to authorize legitimate senders and instruct receivers on handling unauthenticated messages. The Sender Policy Framework (SPF), defined in RFC 7208, is a DNS-based mechanism that allows domain owners to specify which IP addresses are authorized to send email on behalf of their domain, thereby preventing unauthorized use of the domain in the email envelope sender (MAIL FROM). To implement SPF, a domain owner publishes a TXT record in their DNS zone for the domain, containing a policy string that lists authorized hosts or IP networks using mechanisms like "A" for matching the domain's A record, "MX" for mail exchangers, or explicit "ip4:" and "ip6:" prefixes for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, respectively; qualifiers such as "+" (pass), "-" (fail), "~" (softfail), and "?" (neutral) indicate the desired outcome for matching checks. Receiving mail servers perform the SPF check by querying the DNS for the relevant TXT record based on the MAIL FROM domain, evaluating the sending IP against the listed mechanisms, and applying the policy; successful alignment results in a "pass," while failures yield results like "none" (no policy), "softfail," "fail," "temperror" (temporary DNS error), or "permerror" (permanent syntax error). Common failure modes include DNS lookup timeouts leading to temperror, overly broad records causing permerror due to invalid syntax, or forwarder loops exceeding the 10-lookup limit per RFC 7208, which can inadvertently block legitimate email if not mitigated with careful record design. DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM), specified in 6376, provides cryptographic authentication by enabling senders to digitally sign selected parts of the message, ensuring integrity and origin verification without relying solely on IP addresses. The process begins with , where the owner creates a public-private pair using (typically 1024-bit or stronger), publishes the public in a DNS under a selector (e.g., _domainkey.), including tags for the algorithm ("rsa-sha256"), type, and the base64-encoded public . To sign an outgoing message, the sender's server computes a of canonicalized headers (e.g., From, , ) and using SHA-256, encrypts the with the private to produce a signature, and inserts a DKIM-Signature header field containing the signature value, , signing (d=), selector (s=), and timestamps. Upon receipt, the verifier extracts the signature header, retrieves the public from DNS using the s= and d= values, recomputes the of the received message (applying the same to handle minor modifications like line endings), and decrypts the provided signature for comparison; a match confirms authenticity, while mismatches indicate tampering or . failures can occur due to modifications during transit (e.g., by forwarders altering whitespace), expired signatures (beyond the i= ), or DNS retrieval errors, though DKIM's relaxed modes help tolerate such changes. DMARC, outlined in RFC 7489, builds on and DKIM by allowing domain owners to declare a for handling messages that fail authentication or checks, using the RFC 5322 From header domain as the basis for evaluation to protect the visible sender . Implementation involves publishing a at _dmarc.example.com with tags specifying the (p= for requested action: "none" for monitoring only, "quarantine" to treat as suspicious, or "reject" to block outright), subdomain (sp= for subdomains), reporting URIs (rua= for aggregate reports, ruf= for forensic failures), and mode (aspf= or adkim= as "r" for relaxed or "s" for strict). Receivers first perform and/or DKIM checks, then assess —requiring the authenticating domain to match or subdomain-match the From domain (e.g., mail.example.com aligns relaxed with example.com but not strictly unless exact); if either or DKIM passes with , the message passes DMARC. For enforcement, "quarantine" instructs receivers to apply spam filters or warnings (e.g., via SMTP 550 responses or header flags), while "reject" mandates refusal at the SMTP level (e.g., 5xx error codes), with pct= allowing percentage-based rollout to avoid disruptions. Challenges include subdomain misalignment, where subdomains inherit the parent but fail if their own /DKIM records do not match the From header, potentially leading to false positives unless addressed with explicit sp= policies or . By 2025, over 93% of companies had implemented valid DMARC records, reflecting widespread adoption driven by mandates from providers like and , though full enforcement (p=reject) lagged at around 63% due to such configuration complexities. Brand Indicators for Message Identification (BIMI), detailed in draft specifications, extends by enabling the display of brand logos or indicators in clients for authenticated messages, enhancing user trust without introducing new primitives. Domain owners publish a BIMI TXT record at default._bimi.example.com, including a tag-value syntax (similar to DKIM) with a= for the logo URL (typically an SVG file hosted at ), l= for logo size, and optionally vmc= for a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC) URL to prove ownership via a from a trusted . BIMI requires a policy of at least p= (preferably reject) and successful DMARC pass; upon verification, supporting mail user agents (MUAs) fetch and render the indicator next to the From field, but only if the message aligns and no errors occur in logo retrieval (e.g., or invalid ). This visual confirmation applies to trusted brands post-authentication, but adoption remains limited as it depends on MUA support from providers like and , with no enforcement mechanism for non-compliant receivers.

Detection and Response Methods

Detection of email spoofing often begins with manual or automated analysis of email headers, which contain metadata about the message's origin, routing, and authentication status. Security teams examine fields such as "From," "Return-Path," "Received," and "Date" for anomalies like mismatched domains between the sender and return path, suspicious routing paths indicating forged hops, or timestamp inconsistencies that suggest tampering. For instance, a discrepancy in the "Date" header compared to the server's timestamp can flag potential spoofing attempts. Machine learning models applied to header data, extracting features like domain matching and missing fields, have achieved up to 97% accuracy in identifying phishing emails associated with spoofing. Advanced detection leverages and filters to scan for broader patterns beyond headers. Google's employs TensorFlow-based models to analyze sender reputation, content, and structures in real-time, blocking over 99.9% of emails that often rely on spoofing techniques. These systems detect adversarial manipulations, such as subtle typos or emojis in spoofed messages, adapting to evolving threats within minutes. Monitoring spoofing attempts involves reviewing logs from email gateways and authentication reports. Email gateway logs capture inbound traffic details, including IP addresses and authentication failures, allowing administrators to identify patterns of spoofed traffic from unauthorized sources. Complementing this, DMARC aggregate reports provide daily summaries of emails claiming to originate from a domain, detailing pass/fail rates for , , and checks to spot unauthorized usage. These XML-formatted reports, often analyzed with tools like Power BI, help organizations detect and investigate spoofing incidents proactively. Response strategies focus on immediate and long-term . Upon detection, suspicious emails are quarantined in secure holds, preventing while allowing review by teams; for example, policies can automate quarantine for failing messages. User training programs simulate spoofing scenarios, teaching recipients to identify red flags like unexpected attachments or urgent requests from familiar domains, with simulated exercises reducing click rates on malicious links. Advanced methods incorporate behavioral analysis and system integrations for enhanced vigilance. Behavioral analytics monitor patterns such as unusual sender frequencies or deviations from normal volumes, flagging anomalies that indicate coordinated spoofing campaigns. Integration with (SIEM) systems, enhanced by User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA), correlates email logs with user actions—like clicking suspicious links—to generate real-time alerts for potential compromises. Layered approaches combining these detection and response methods significantly improve effectiveness against spoofed phishing. Organizations using adaptive training alongside AI filters have reduced phishing incidents by up to 86%, while comprehensive platforms block over 99% of threats.

Business Email Compromise

Business email compromise (BEC) is a type of cyber fraud where attackers use email spoofing to impersonate executives, vendors, or trusted contacts to deceive employees into authorizing fraudulent wire transfers, altering invoice payments, or disclosing sensitive information. Common tactics include spoofing email addresses to mimic legitimate domains (e.g., using "[email protected]" instead of "[email protected]") or compromising real accounts via . According to the FBI's (), BEC scams caused over $2.9 billion in losses in 2023 alone, with global figures exceeding $43 billion since 2016. Examples include "CEO fraud," where spoofed emails from apparent executives request urgent fund transfers, and "vendor email compromise," where attackers alter payment details in ongoing communications. Mitigation involves protocols like and verifying requests through channels.

Notable Incidents

One notable incident involving email spoofing occurred in 2019 when Corporation, a major auto parts supplier to , fell victim to a business email compromise (BEC) scam. Attackers used spoofed emails mimicking legitimate corporate communications to convince a financial employee to alter details for a large funds transfer, resulting in the loss of approximately ¥4 billion (about $37 million USD). The scammers had conducted extensive on the company's patterns, enabling them to craft highly convincing fake invoices that appeared to come from trusted vendors. This attack underscored the dangers of inadequate protocols and the need for multi-factor verification in financial transactions, as the company struggled to recover the funds through legal channels. From 2024 to 2025, -enhanced email spoofing attacks surged in the healthcare sector, with generative tools enabling cybercriminals to create hyper-personalized emails and fake patient portal login pages that bypassed traditional filters. Incidents included a 700% increase in credential targeting hospitals and clinics, leading to from electronic health records and disruptions in patient care, as reported by the U.S. Department of Health and (HHS). For example, -generated emails impersonating hospital administrators tricked staff into clicking malicious links, compromising systems at multiple providers and exposing (PHI) of thousands. These attacks prompted regulatory probes by HHS and the (FTC) into compliance with HIPAA and emerging guidelines, highlighting the need for -driven detection tools and updated to counter evolving threats. Lessons emphasized proactive adoption of behavioral email analysis and federal mandates for transparency in cybersecurity. In the United States, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act ( serves as the primary federal legislation addressing commercial email practices, including prohibitions on false or misleading header information that could facilitate spoofing, alongside requirements for opt-out mechanisms and accurate sender identification. However, the Act's focus on commercial messages limits its effectiveness against non-commercial spoofing, leading to calls for stronger enforcement mechanisms. Complementing this, the wire fraud statute under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 criminalizes schemes to defraud using interstate wire communications, such as spoofed emails in business email compromise (BEC) attacks, and has been invoked in numerous prosecutions involving financial losses from impersonation scams. In the , the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), effective since 2018, imposes significant fines—up to €20 million or 4% of global annual turnover—for data breaches stemming from inadequate security measures, including those exploited via email spoofing that enables unauthorized access to . Organizations failing to implement robust protections against and spoofing-related breaches have faced penalties, as these incidents often violate GDPR's requirements for under Article 32. The (2002/58/EC), which complements GDPR, regulates electronic communications by mandating confidentiality and prohibiting unsolicited emails, with ongoing proposals for an to enhance standards and address spoofing in digital messaging. On the international front, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) enforces domain policies through its Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Registry Agreement, requiring mitigation of DNS abuse such as phishing via lookalike domains that enable email spoofing. Early global efforts include the 2004 G8 commitments under the Sea Island Summit to combat spam and related cyber threats through coordinated policy and technical measures, influencing subsequent international anti-spam frameworks like the OECD Anti-Spam Toolkit. Enforcement of these frameworks faces significant hurdles, particularly in cross-border jurisdiction, where perpetrators often operate across national boundaries, complicating evidence collection, , and prosecution under varying legal standards. The U.S. (FTC) has pursued actions against spoofing-related scams. Looking ahead, proposed U.S. guidelines from the (CISA) for 2025 mandate implementation with a "p=reject" policy for federal agencies to counter spoofing, while emerging threats could undermine current digital signatures in , necessitating transitions.

References

  1. [1]
    What is email spoofing? | How it works & prevention - Cloudflare
    Email spoofing is when attackers tamper with emails to disguise themselves as legitimate senders. This tactic is common in phishing attacks.Missing: authoritative | Show results with:authoritative
  2. [2]
    What Is Email Spoofing? How It Works, Precautions and Protections
    Email spoofing is sending emails with a fake sender address, manipulating email headers to make a message appear as if it originated from a different sender.Missing: authoritative | Show results with:authoritative
  3. [3]
    What is email spoofing? How it works and ways to prevent it - Valimail
    Email spoofing is a cyberattack technique where bad actors forge the header information of an email, making it appear as though it was sent from someone other ...Missing: definition methods authoritative
  4. [4]
    What is Email Spoofing & How to Identify One | CrowdStrike
    Oct 6, 2022 · Email spoofing is a type of cyberattack that targets businesses by using emails with forged sender addresses. Because the recipient trusts ...Phishing · Avoid Spam Filters · Use Email Security ProtocolsMissing: authoritative | Show results with:authoritative
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Email in the early 1980's Spoofed email The received header Spam ...
    SMTP Relay forwards mail to destination. 1. Bulk email tool connects via SMTP (port 25). 2. Sends list of recipients (via RCPT TO command).
  6. [6]
    Phishing - KnowBe4
    Rating 9.1/10 (1,136) A phishing technique was described in detail in a paper and presentation delivered to the 1987 International HP Users Group, Interex.
  7. [7]
    The History of Digital Spam - Communications of the ACM
    Aug 1, 2019 · The first mass email campaign occurred in 1994, known as the USENET green card lottery spam: the law firm of Canter & Siegel advertised their ...
  8. [8]
    History of Phishing Scams
    In late 2003, phishers registered dozens of domains that suggested legitimate sites like eBay and PayPal. They used email worm programs to send out spoofed ...
  9. [9]
    CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business
    Each separate email in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act is subject to penalties of up to $53,088, so non-compliance can be costly. But following the law isn't ...
  10. [10]
    MyDoom.B Virus - CISA
    Jan 30, 2004 · Emails sent out by Mydoom.B are generated randomly. The From address may also be spoofed to appear as though the message is from a different ...<|separator|>
  11. [11]
    FBI Warns of Dramatic Increase in Business E-Mail Scams
    Apr 4, 2016 · FBI officials are warning potential victims of a dramatic rise in the business e-mail compromise scam or “B.E.C.,” a scheme that targets ...
  12. [12]
    Google's DMARC Push Pays Off, but Challenges Remain
    Feb 7, 2025 · A year after Google and Yahoo started requiring DMARC, the adoption rate of the email authentication specification has doubled; and yet, 87% of domains remain ...
  13. [13]
  14. [14]
  15. [15]
    [PDF] Technical Trends in Phishing Attacks - CISA
    techniques for delivering phishing emails and distributing malware. These include the use of botnets, open mail relays, and compromised web sites to host ...
  16. [16]
  17. [17]
    RFC 5321 - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol - IETF Datatracker
    RFC 5321 specifies the basic protocol for Internet electronic mail transport, aiming to transfer mail reliably and efficiently.
  18. [18]
    RFC 2045 - Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One
    This set of documents, collectively called the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions, or MIME, redefines the format of messages.
  19. [19]
    Exploiting MIME Ambiguities to Evade Email Attachment Detectors
    Dec 9, 2024 · In this paper, we perform the first systematic evaluation of email attachment detection against parsing ambiguity vulnerabilities.<|separator|>
  20. [20]
    How to Secure SMTP Email Delivery with TLS - LuxSci
    There is no mandatory support for TLS in the email system. · A receiver's support of the SMTP TLS option can be trivially removed by an active man-in-the-middle ...
  21. [21]
    Email Security | The return of the open relays - Spamhaus
    Dec 2, 2013 · 1997-2003: THE OPEN RELAY ERA. Around 1997, a company named Cyber Promotions (a/k/a Cyberpromo) was the first to start spamming Internet ...
  22. [22]
    RFC 6531 - SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email
    This document specifies an SMTP extension for transport and delivery of email messages with internationalized email addresses or header information.Missing: spoofing | Show results with:spoofing
  23. [23]
    Unicode Domain Phishing: How you can protect yourself
    Feb 23, 2018 · Unicode Domain Phishing is a clever practice where an attacker uses Unicode instead of ASCII and mimics a popular website.
  24. [24]
    Unicode Domain Phishing Attacks: Can You Spot the Difference?
    Hackers can take advantage of this to execute a Unicode domain phishing attack, also referred to as an internationalized domain name (IDN) homograph attack.
  25. [25]
    What Is A Whaling Phishing Attack? - Cisco
    Spoofing is an incredibly common tactic used in whaling attacks. An email is sent from a domain name that looks a lot like a well-known organization or business ...
  26. [26]
    Whaling, phishing, and spear phishing: What's the difference? | Proton
    Sep 8, 2025 · Spear phishing and whaling attacks use the same tactics as phishing ... email is coming from a legitimate sender, this is called email spoofing.
  27. [27]
    What Is Spear Phishing? - Definition, Examples, Prevention
    Spear phishing is a highly targeted form of phishing designed to deceive individuals or organizations into revealing sensitive information.Spear Phishing vs. Phishing · Spear Phishing vs. Whaling
  28. [28]
    What is Whale Phishing? - IBM
    Whale phishing, or whaling, is a type of phishing attack that targets high-level corporate officers with fraudulent emails, text messages or phone calls.
  29. [29]
    Spear Phishing and Whaling: Key Threats and Defense Strategies.
    Jun 22, 2024 · Email Spoofing: Attackers may manipulate the email headers to make it appear that the email comes from a trusted source, such as a colleague ...
  30. [30]
    The Psychology of Phishing: Unraveling the Success Behind ... - Trellix
    Feb 1, 2024 · These techniques rely on psychological manipulation, exploiting trust, authority, curiosity, and fear to deceive victims into revealing ...
  31. [31]
    What is Social Engineering? - Palo Alto Networks
    Key Psychological Triggers: Authority—Attackers impersonate authority figures, such as executives or IT staff, to pressure victims into complying with requests.
  32. [32]
    The human factor in phishing: Collecting and analyzing user ...
    The psychology of the recipient of a phishing attack is a determining factor in the success of the attack. The human factor has been the subject of many studies ...2. Background And Related... · 3. System Design And... · Appendix B
  33. [33]
    51 Must-Know Phishing Statistics for 2023 | IT Governance
    Jun 8, 2023 · 2. Verizon's 2023 DBIR found that 36% of all data breaches involved phishing. 3. One of the main aims of phishing is to capture people's login ...Missing: spoofing | Show results with:spoofing
  34. [34]
    AI vs. AI: Detecting an AI-obfuscated phishing campaign - Microsoft
    Sep 24, 2025 · Microsoft Threat Intelligence recently detected and blocked a credential phishing campaign that likely used AI-generated code to obfuscate ...Phishing Campaign Tactics... · Using Ai To Analyze The... · Using Ai To Detect The...
  35. [35]
    Spoofing and Phishing - FBI.gov
    Spoofing is when someone disguises an email address, sender name, phone number, or website URL—often just by changing one letter, symbol, or number—to convince ...Missing: authoritative | Show results with:authoritative
  36. [36]
    Phishing, Quishing, Vishing, and Smishing - ArcherPoint
    Oct 9, 2023 · “Vishing” uses the same tactics as phishing but uses voice via telephone calls to socially engineer the victim into divulging their personal ...
  37. [37]
    10 Ways Phishing Bypasses SPAM Filters - RealTime Cyber
    Threat actors evade spam filters by using slight, randomized variations in email structure; such as altering subject lines, body text, sender display names, or ...
  38. [38]
    Randomly generated one-time-use domain names for phishing
    Jan 3, 2024 · For example, if you use Outlook, you can report phishing emails by selecting the email and clicking the “Report Message” button in the toolbar.<|control11|><|separator|>
  39. [39]
    Double-Bounced Attacks: 2022 Trends in Email Spoofing - CyberProof
    Sep 1, 2022 · To exploit the bounce-back mechanism for email messages, an attacker spoofs the email address of the target user – forging the “FROM” field, so ...
  40. [40]
    Emotet Spoofs IRS in Tax Season-Themed Phishing Email Campaign
    Mar 16, 2022 · Emotet has consistently employed financial themes in its phishing emails, and attackers have previously exploited the arrival of the U.S. ...
  41. [41]
    What is a Botnet? Types, Examples & Prevention - Rapid7
    Common uses of botnets​​ Spam and phishing campaigns: Botnets can distribute massive volumes of spam emails containing malicious links or attachments, often used ...Missing: spoofing | Show results with:spoofing
  42. [42]
    Kaspersky spam and phishing report for 2024 | Securelist
    Feb 19, 2025 · In 2024, spam emails accounted for 47.27% of the total global email traffic, an increase of 1.27 p.p. compared to the previous year. The lowest ...Missing: source | Show results with:source
  43. [43]
    Pyramid Schemes Go High Tech with Affiliate Spam and Malware ...
    Jun 27, 2017 · Proofpoint researchers examine how the affiliate marketing model drives both spam and malware distribution.Missing: spoofing | Show results with:spoofing
  44. [44]
    Email Address Harvesting - ThreatNG Security
    These harvested lists are then typically used for malicious purposes, primarily spamming, phishing attacks, and other forms of cybercrime. Here's a detailed ...
  45. [45]
    What is Email Backscatter and How to Prevent It | Barracuda Campus
    Dec 22, 2023 · Email backscatter is unwanted email that occurs when a spam or phishing email is sent with a spoofed sender address.
  46. [46]
    Understanding email spoofing and backscatter - Paubox
    Jan 16, 2024 · On the other hand, email backscatter occurs when email servers mistakenly send bounce messages to the forged return addresses in spoofed emails.
  47. [47]
    Anti-spoofing protection - Microsoft Defender for Office 365
    Jul 28, 2025 · Anti-spoofing technology in Microsoft 365 specifically examines forgery of the From header in the message body (also known as the 5322.From ...
  48. [48]
    SPF Best Practices for Protection Against Email Spoofing and Phishing
    Aug 4, 2021 · There are several rules, and overlooking them makes a record invalid, causing false positives and deliverability issues or allowing fraudulent ...
  49. [49]
    Detect and Prevent Email Spoofing - Cisco
    This document describes how to detect and prevent email spoofing when using Cisco Secure Email.
  50. [50]
    SMTP Open Relay Vulnerabilities: How to Prevent Security Breaches
    Mar 13, 2025 · The repercussions of being identified as an open relay can be severe: your IP address can get blacklisted, significantly impacting email ...
  51. [51]
    Backscatter: What is it? How do I stop it? - Spam Resource
    Feb 4, 2007 · I know from helping clients legitimately handle bounces, maybe 7-10% of email servers accept the mail then bounce it back later. Do the math ...
  52. [52]
    A comprehensive examination of email spoofing - ScienceDirect.com
    An in-depth analysis of the email process, its protocols, and authentication mechanisms along with the security measures and adoption rates
  53. [53]
    Elder Fraud, in Focus - FBI.gov
    Apr 30, 2024 · Scams targeting individuals aged 60 and older caused over $3.4 billion in losses in 2023—an increase of approximately 11% from the year prior.
  54. [54]
    [PDF] CAUGHT IN THE WEB | Money and Mental Health
    Dec 11, 2020 · Four in ten (40%) online scam victims have felt stressed and three in ten (28%) have felt depressed as a result of being scammed. • Even for ...
  55. [55]
    Dangers of Email Spoofing - Identity Management Institute®
    Jul 25, 2023 · Email spoofing poses significant risks, such as phishing attacks, business email compromise, malware distribution, financial fraud, reputational damage, and ...
  56. [56]
    What is Email Spoofing? Types & Examples - SentinelOne
    Apr 7, 2025 · Email spoofing is a technique by which attackers forge email headers, making the message appear to come from someone or somewhere other than the actual sender.Missing: authoritative | Show results with:authoritative
  57. [57]
    What Is Alert Fatigue in Cybersecurity? - Proofpoint
    Alert fatigue occurs when an overwhelming amount of cybersecurity alerts diminishes the ability to effectively respond to real security threats.
  58. [58]
    [PDF] 2023 INTERNET CRIME REPORT
    Dec 12, 2023 · BUSINESS EMAIL COMPROMISE (BEC)​​ In 2023, the IC3 received 21,489 BEC complaints with adjusted losses over 2.9 billion. BEC is a sophisticated ...
  59. [59]
    The Mental Health Impacts of Internet Scams - PMC - NIH
    Jun 14, 2025 · It found that internet scams cause emotional and social issues like depression, anxiety, trauma, and isolation, mostly prolonged upon substantial loss.
  60. [60]
    Business Email Compromise Statistics 2025 (+Prevention Guide)
    Mar 3, 2025 · Smaller organizations (fewer than 1,000 employees): still have a 70% weekly probability of experiencing a BEC attack. This shows that all ...
  61. [61]
    35 Alarming Small Business Cybersecurity Statistics for 2025
    Small businesses receive the highest rate of targeted malicious emails at one in 323. 7. Employees of small businesses experience 350% more social engineering ...Missing: spoofing | Show results with:spoofing
  62. [62]
    RFC 7208 - Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of ...
    RFC 7208 defines SPF, a protocol where domains authorize hosts using their domain names in email, and receivers check this authorization.
  63. [63]
    RFC 6376 - DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures
    Get the Public Key The public key for a signature is needed to complete the verification process. The process of retrieving the public key depends on the ...
  64. [64]
    RFC 7489 - Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and ...
    If email is subject to the DMARC policy of "quarantine", the Mail Receiver SHOULD quarantine the message. If the email is not subject to the "quarantine" policy ...
  65. [65]
    draft-brand-indicators-for-message-identification-11 - IETF Datatracker
    Oct 9, 2025 · BIMI Assertion Records follow the extensible "tag-value" syntax for DNS-based key records as defined in DKIM RFC6376 · lps= Local-Part as ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  66. [66]
    DMARC Deployment Challenges: 7 Common Mistakes - Valimail
    1. Confusing monitoring for protection · 2. Believing in the myth of “partial enforcement” · 3. Forgetting about subdomains · 4. Out of order records · 5. Omitting ...
  67. [67]
    DMARC Adoption Gap: Fortune 500 vs. Inc. 5000Ask - EasyDMARC
    Jul 25, 2025 · The gap widens even further when we examine enforcement levels. Among Fortune 500 companies with DMARC, 62.7% apply the strictest protection (p= ...
  68. [68]
    What Is an Email Header? A Guide for Security Teams | Abnormal AI
    May 29, 2025 · An email header is a block of metadata that contains technical details about an email's origin, delivery path, and authentication status.
  69. [69]
    [PDF] Anomaly Detection in Emails using Machine Learning and Header ...
    Additionally, using header fields avoids the issues of image spam, which is when spam or phishing messages are placed in images to make analysis more difficult.
  70. [70]
    Google – Protecting Billions with AI-Driven Email Filters
    The sender's address is cleverly spoofed. Google's AI analyzes the URL structure (e.g., “drive-google.secure-login[.]co”), the language urgency in the email ...
  71. [71]
    Use DMARC to validate email, setup steps - Microsoft Learn
    May 7, 2025 · You should regularly review the DMARC Aggregate reports to monitor where email from your domains is coming from, and to check for unintentional ...
  72. [72]
    A Guide to DMARC Reports and How to Read Them - Mimecast
    Dec 3, 2024 · DMARC reports play a crucial role in protecting organizations from email spoofing and phishing attacks. They also provide valuable information ...Missing: gateway | Show results with:gateway
  73. [73]
    How To Stop Spoofing Emails: Effective Security Techniques To ...
    To effectively stop spoofing emails, organizations should implement a combination of SPF (Sender Policy Framework), DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail), and DMARC ...
  74. [74]
    Simulate a phishing attack with Attack simulation training
    Admins can learn how to simulate phishing attacks and train their users on phishing prevention using Attack simulation training in Microsoft Defender for ...
  75. [75]
    User & Entity Behavior Analytics - QRadar SIEM - IBM
    IBM QRadar SIEM User & Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) establishes a baseline of behavior patterns for your employees and critical assets, so you can ...Missing: methods spoofing
  76. [76]
    Phishing Trends Report (Updated for 2025) - Hoxhunt
    The Verizon DBIR for the first time in 2024 calculated a global benchmark for users who reported a phishing simulation: 20%. The participants in, and ...
  77. [77]
    Toyota Parts Supplier Hit By $37 Million Email Scam - Forbes
    Sep 6, 2019 · Fraudsters fleeced the company via an email scam to the tune of about ¥ 4 billion (JPY). That works out to just over $37 million at today's exchange rate.
  78. [78]
    Toyota Parts Supplier Loses $37 Million in Email Scam | Tripwire
    Sep 11, 2019 · Toyota Boshoku, a seating and interiors supplier for Toyota cars, has revealed that it was tricked into moving a large amount of money into a bank account ...
  79. [79]
    An update on our security incident - Blog - X
    Jul 30, 2020 · The attackers successfully manipulated a small number of employees and used their credentials to access Twitter's internal systems, including ...
  80. [80]
    Twitter says high-profile hack was the result of a phishing attack - CNN
    Jul 30, 2020 · Twitter says high-profile hack was the result of a phishing attack ; Hack on famous Twitter accounts raises national security concerns. 03:41.
  81. [81]
    Casino giant MGM expects $100 million hit from hack that led to data ...
    Oct 6, 2023 · MGM Resorts International (MGM.N) said on Thursday a cyberattack last month that disrupted its operations would cause a $100 million hit to its third-quarter ...
  82. [82]
    Cyberattack cost MGM Resorts about $100 million, Las Vegas ...
    Oct 5, 2023 · The criminal cyberattack on MGM Resorts in Las Vegas last month resulted in the company's losing around $100 million, it said in a filing Thursday evening.
  83. [83]
    2016 Data Security Incident | Uber Newsroom
    Nov 21, 2017 · In late 2016 we became aware that two individuals outside the company had inappropriately accessed user data stored on a third-party cloud-based service that ...
  84. [84]
    Uber Paid Off Hackers to Hide a 57-Million User Data Breach - WIRED
    Nov 21, 2017 · Uber paid off hackers to hide a 57-million user data breach. The ridesharing service's latest scandal combines routine security negligence with an "appalling" ...
  85. [85]
    Former Chief Security Officer Of Uber Convicted Of Federal Charges ...
    Oct 5, 2022 · Former Chief Security Officer Of Uber Convicted Of Federal Charges For Covering Up Data Breach Involving Millions Of Uber User Records.
  86. [86]
    AI-Enhanced Phishing Attacks Surge Dramatically, Prompting Need ...
    Jul 8, 2025 · These AI-driven attacks produce highly convincing emails and fake login pages, effectively circumventing traditional security defenses and ...
  87. [87]
    Readying hospital defenses for the AI-powered phishing surge
    Jul 8, 2025 · In late 2024, credential phishing incidents surged by more than 700%, powered by generative AI tools that can instantly create convincing emails, fake login ...
  88. [88]
    Feds Warn Healthcare Sector of AI-Augmented Phishing Threats
    Oct 27, 2023 · Hospitals, clinics and doctor practices have long fallen victim to cyberattacks and breaches kicked off with phishing emails.Missing: enhanced spoofing spoofed portals
  89. [89]
    What is the CAN-SPAM Act? - Cloudflare
    The CAN-SPAM Act is a law governing emails and other messages from commercial entities. Learn about best email practices and consequences for noncompliance.
  90. [90]
    18 U.S. Code § 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television
    Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent ...
  91. [91]
    How business email compromise cases lead to wire fraud charges
    Rating 5.0 (2) Sep 21, 2024 · Under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, wire fraud occurs when someone uses interstate wire communications, such as emails, to further fraudulent schemes. When ...
  92. [92]
    Fines / Penalties - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
    Rating 4.6 (10,110) Fines for GDPR violations can be up to 20 million euros or 4% of global turnover for severe cases, and up to 10 million euros or 2% for less severe cases.Missing: spoofing | Show results with:spoofing
  93. [93]
    Data breaches under the GDPR: Five key questions - Linklaters
    The most severe sanction would be the imposition of a fine (a penalty notice). That fine could, in theory, be for the greater of €10 million or 2% of annual ...Missing: spoofing | Show results with:spoofing<|separator|>
  94. [94]
    Proposal for an ePrivacy Regulation | Shaping Europe's digital future
    The European Commission's proposal for a Regulation on ePrivacy aims at reinforcing trust and security in the digital world.
  95. [95]
    [PDF] ICANN's Enforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements
    Nov 8, 2024 · For the purpose of the Registry Agreement (RA) and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. (RAA), DNS Abuse means malware, botnets, phishing, ...<|separator|>
  96. [96]
    The Legal Battle Against E-mail Spoofing
    Dec 12, 2023 · Cross-border investigations: Email spoofing often involves perpetrators operating from different jurisdictions, complicating evidence collection ...
  97. [97]
    FTC Charges Twitter with Deceptively Using Account Security Data ...
    May 25, 2022 · Under the proposed order, Twitter must pay a $150 million penalty and is banned from profiting from its deceptively collected data. “As the ...Missing: spoofing | Show results with:spoofing
  98. [98]
    Post Quantum Cryptography (PQC): Here's how email security is ...
    Oct 11, 2024 · Quantum threats: Forged signatures: Quantum computers could forge digital signatures, making it possible to impersonate legitimate senders. Spam ...