I need a trustwave.com contact--to help investigate an e-mail
deliverability issue which is causing hand-typed messages sent from a
prestigious law firm to get blocked. Feel free to reply off-list.
Thanks!
--
Rob McEwen, CEO of invaluement.com
+1 478-475-9032
_
On 2015-09-10 06:58, John Levine wrote:
SRS was mostly useful as an exercise to confirm that the world is not
going to completely change how it works just because the FUSSP du jour
can't describe the way it's been sending mail for 30 years.
Personally, I'd r
On 2015-09-10 04:45, Robert Mueller wrote:
Is there any evidence it's been useful in any way to help stop or
identify spam?
No. But it's moderately good at helping identify when a message is from
the sender it claims, and this is useful information.
I love that I can give users a one click "
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Gil Bahat wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:50 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>
>>> >Does anyone understand SRS? I thought it was pretty much a dead end.
>>>
>>> It dates from the magic bullet phase
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:50 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
>> >Does anyone understand SRS? I thought it was pretty much a dead end.
>>
>> It dates from the magic bullet phase of SPF, so yeah.
>>
>> >The reason we rewrite is so that bounces
On 15-09-10 05:13 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
Spam (and all other forms of abuse) is/are best stopped as close to the
source as possible: every hop away from there makes the problem harder
and pushes the error rate up. Thus the ideal place is*at* the source.
This doesn't require SPF or SRS or DKIM
>IMHO everything about SPF and SRS borders on somewhere between pointless
>and craziness. Is there any evidence it's been useful in any way to help
>stop or identify spam?
A plain SPF '-all' to say this domain sends no mail at all works great.
Other than that SPF has been somewhat useful for phis
>Does anyone understand SRS? I thought it was pretty much a dead end.
It dates from the magic bullet phase of SPF, so yeah.
>The reason we rewrite is so that bounces come back to us so we can
>automatically disable forwarding if the account we're forwarding to goes
>away.
Well, actually, you're
>> In general, it seems we're way past the point where we should have a more
>> explicit system for forwarding.
> Agree. Who wants to write one? :)
On needs to think of what ‘forwarding’ means:
- It could mean that someone wants to forward his/her email from
localp...@example.com to a
> On 10-Sep-2015, at 5:15 PM, Robert Mueller wrote:
>
> IMHO everything about SPF and SRS borders on somewhere between pointless and
> craziness.
Thank you.
—srs___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/m
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 09:45:40PM +1000, Robert Mueller wrote:
> IMHO everything about SPF and SRS borders on somewhere between pointless
> and craziness. Is there any evidence it's been useful in any way to help
> stop or identify spam?
No. SPF was announced by an ignorant newbie with this gran
>> Ok, just to confirm, does this mean you don't recommend or recognise
>> SRS rewritten MAIL FROM addresses as special in any way?
>
> Does anyone understand SRS? I thought it was pretty much a dead end.
IMHO everything about SPF and SRS borders on somewhere between pointless
and craziness. Is
12 matches
Mail list logo
