Re: Ok: this is a targetted attack

2013-02-11 Thread Rich Kulawiec
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 01:39:18PM -0800, Sean Lazar wrote: > Jay, you need to have SPF records for your domain. This will prevent the > spoofing you are seeing. (a) SPF is just about entirely worthless and (b) if someone really has it in for Jay and has at least minimal competence, it won't stop

Re: Ok: this is a targetted attack

2013-02-11 Thread PC
An SPF record will probably only add value if the receiving mail server for the nanog list uses them to restrict allowed senders for the domain. On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Rob McEwen wrote: > On 2/11/2013 4:39 PM, Sean Lazar wrote: > > Jay, you need to have SPF records for your domain. Th

Re: Ok: this is a targetted attack

2013-02-11 Thread Rob McEwen
On 2/11/2013 4:39 PM, Sean Lazar wrote: > Jay, you need to have SPF records for your domain. This will prevent the > spoofing you are seeing. yep, while the purpose and effectiveness of SPF records are generally VERY overrated... yet for a situation like this, an SPF record is VERY valuable and it

Re: Ok: this is a targetted attack

2013-02-11 Thread Jay Ashworth
- Original Message - > From: "Sean Lazar" > Jay, you need to have SPF records for your domain. This will prevent > the spoofing you are seeing. I should in fact. But am I incorrect in thinking that since the envelope address *was not actually forged*, they wouldn't help here unless *M

Re: Ok: this is a targetted attack

2013-02-11 Thread Sean Lazar
Jay, you need to have SPF records for your domain. This will prevent the spoofing you are seeing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework $ dig @8.8.8.8 baylink.com TXT ; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> @8.8.8.8 baylink.com TXT ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>