> In addition to whatever value it might have for Bayesian filters, it may
> be useful to always add an X-From: header, so that diagnosing email
> problems like my client with the forged From: header would be easier. I
> had to grep through his server logs to see how the spammer bypassed the
> SPF
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Matt Simerson wrote:
>
> On Jun 4, 2012, at 9:26 AM, Charlie Brady wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Matt Simerson wrote:
> >
> >> Is it a good idea to validate that the MAIL FROM address is the same as
> >> the From: header in the message?
...
> > Also wouldn't work well f
On Jun 4, 2012, at 9:26 AM, Charlie Brady wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Matt Simerson wrote:
>
>> Is it a good idea to validate that the MAIL FROM address is the same as
>> the From: header in the message?
>>
>> What exceptions need to be made, if any?
>>
>> What problems might I encounter if
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Matt Simerson wrote:
> Is it a good idea to validate that the MAIL FROM address is the same as
> the From: header in the message?
>
> What exceptions need to be made, if any?
>
> What problems might I encounter if I were to do this?
For starters, you would penalise this me
> What problems might I encounter if I were to do this?
>
> I ask because I have a client who is currently getting spammed viciously
> by spammers who use one address in MAIL FROM (to pass SPF tests) and they
> use the senders email address in the From: header so they can get
> whitelist scoring by
