Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes:
> > Richard Smits wrote:
> > >Hos safe is it to pump up the score for the ANY_BOUNCE_MESSAGE ?
> > >Is it bug free, so I can give it 5 or 10 points ?
>
> On 18.04.08 09:19, Jason Haar wrote:
> > So you are wanting to mark ANY bounce, out of office, or mailing-list
> Richard Smits wrote:
> >Hos safe is it to pump up the score for the ANY_BOUNCE_MESSAGE ?
> >Is it bug free, so I can give it 5 or 10 points ?
On 18.04.08 09:19, Jason Haar wrote:
> So you are wanting to mark ANY bounce, out of office, or mailing-list
> related email into your organization as sp
Richard Smits wrote:
Hos safe is it to pump up the score for the ANY_BOUNCE_MESSAGE ?
Is it bug free, so I can give it 5 or 10 points ?
So you are wanting to mark ANY bounce, out of office, or mailing-list
related email into your organization as spam? If you want to do that,
then sure! :-)
Hos safe is it to pump up the score for the ANY_BOUNCE_MESSAGE ?
Is it bug free, so I can give it 5 or 10 points ?
Is anyone doing this ? (Maybe a step to far)
Greetings Richard
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> Graham Murray wrote:
>>> If you publish a suitable SPF record then you will not r
> Graham Murray wrote:
> >If you publish a suitable SPF record then you will not receive any
> >backscatter (which is the subject of this thread) from sites which
> >correctly implement SPF checking.
On 16.04.08 18:06, mouss wrote:
> without spf, you will not receive any backscatter from sites whi
Graham Murray wrote:
mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ahuh? how would spf fix the problem if spam gets out from an
authorized client (yahoo, google, hotmail, aol, ...). however you
respond, you'll find out that such (ougoing) spam problem isn't fixed
_by_ SPF. In particular, don't tell me "
I'm sensing a disconnect here.
Me too! I don't call something broken if it follows the standard.
I'm sure this is getting pointless. I'm done.
Joseph Brennan
Columbia University Information Technology
Joseph Brennan wrote:
what "own rules"? I'm talking that forwarding without changing sender's
address is broken already and I described how and why. SPS just
highlights
this problem and SRS is trying to solve it...
I don't see this necessity to change the sender address anywhere
in RFC 2821.
what "own rules"? I'm talking that forwarding without changing sender's
address is broken already and I described how and why. SPS just highlights
this problem and SRS is trying to solve it...
I don't see this necessity to change the sender address anywhere
in RFC 2821. In fact it differenti
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >no, SPF does not break forwarding. Automatic forwarding without changing
> >envelope from address is broken already
On 15.04.08 09:24, Joseph Brennan wrote:
> SMTP is not Calvin Ball. If you make up your own rules about forwarding
> please
Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
no, SPF does not break forwarding. Automatic forwarding without changing
envelope from address is broken already
SMTP is not Calvin Ball. If you make up your own rules about forwarding
please do not be surprised that other people ignore them
> On Thu, April 10, 2008 18:29, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> > On Thursday 10 April 2008 17:16:40 mouss wrote:
> >> I personally have found that SPF causes more problems than it helps, and
> >> for that I do not recommend setting SPF record for "general use" domains.
On 14.04.08 20:03, Benny Pe
On Thu, April 10, 2008 18:29, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> On Thursday 10 April 2008 17:16:40 mouss wrote:
>> I personally have found that SPF causes more problems than it helps, and
>> for that I do not recommend setting SPF record for "general use" domains.
spf supports +ALL, please tell me
> From: Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:08:03 +0100
> To:
> Subject: Re: Returned mail spam
>
> mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> ahuh? how would spf fix the problem if spam gets out from an
>> authorized clien
mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ahuh? how would spf fix the problem if spam gets out from an
> authorized client (yahoo, google, hotmail, aol, ...). however you
> respond, you'll find out that such (ougoing) spam problem isn't fixed
> _by_ SPF. In particular, don't tell me "they will fix their
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 10.04.08 20:03, mouss wrote:
Some sites cache results obtained from DNS beyond DNS TTL. I don't think
their DNS server caches the results (though I am willing to accept that
there are borked DNS implementations). It's more likely that whatever
$thing queries
On 10.04.08 20:03, mouss wrote:
> Some sites cache results obtained from DNS beyond DNS TTL. I don't think
> their DNS server caches the results (though I am willing to accept that
> there are borked DNS implementations). It's more likely that whatever
> $thing queries DNS is caching the result
> >>>mouss wrote:
> he's not the only one... seems there's a lot of backscatter coming in
> these days.
>
> Thanks for confirming that spf doesn't fix the problem.
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >SPF is designed to fix the problem,
On 10.04.08 17:16, mouss wrote:
> ahuh? how
Bob Proulx wrote:
mouss wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
I don't think that any of those should match and therefore is safe by
default.
the trouble comes from the default (compatibility) value of
relay_domains and relay_recipient_maps. For this reason, it is
recommended to set
parent_
mouss wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> >I don't think that any of those should match and therefore is safe by
> >default.
>
> the trouble comes from the default (compatibility) value of
> relay_domains and relay_recipient_maps. For this reason, it is
> recommended to set
> parent_domain_matches_subd
Kelson wrote:
Who said anything about spam from an authorized source?
I was misled by SPF... sorry.
The problem *being discussed* is spam with a forged sender address,
causing bounce notices to go to an innocent third party.
which is caused by "accept then bounce" implementations, someth
mouss wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
But back on topic... the OP has been joe-jobbed.
mouss wrote:
he's not the only one... seems there's a lot of backscatter coming
in these days.
Thanks for confirming that spf doesn't fix the problem.
SPF is designed to fix the pro
Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
On Thursday 10 April 2008 17:16:40 mouss wrote:
I personally have found that SPF causes more problems than it helps, and
for that I do not recommend setting SPF record for "general use" domains.
mind explaining more detailed? I use SPF on all 300 domains.
On Thursday 10 April 2008 17:16:40 mouss wrote:
> I personally have found that SPF causes more problems than it helps, and
> for that I do not recommend setting SPF record for "general use" domains.
mind explaining more detailed? I use SPF on all 300 domains. I don't think
anyone actually checks
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
But back on topic... the OP has been joe-jobbed.
mouss wrote:
he's not the only one... seems there's a lot of backscatter coming in
these days.
Thanks for confirming that spf doesn't fix the problem.
SPF is designed to fix the pr
> >>>But back on topic... the OP has been joe-jobbed.
> >mouss wrote:
> >>he's not the only one... seems there's a lot of backscatter coming in
> >>these days.
> >>
> >>Thanks for confirming that spf doesn't fix the problem.
SPF is designed to fix the problem, however as many other standards it
Steve Prior wrote:
mouss wrote:
But back on topic... the OP has been joe-jobbed.
he's not the only one... seems there's a lot of backscatter coming in
these days.
Thanks for confirming that spf doesn't fix the problem.
The main problem with SPF is that most other servers out there don't
Bob Proulx wrote:
decoder wrote:
We recently discovered that even our own mailserver (Postfix) was a
backscatter source (and 1-2 weeks ago spammers started to actively use
it), there were several reasons and I'd like to share these points with
the list so nobody does the same mistakes.
mouss wrote:
But back on topic... the OP has been joe-jobbed.
he's not the only one... seems there's a lot of backscatter coming in
these days.
Thanks for confirming that spf doesn't fix the problem.
The main problem with SPF is that most other servers out there don't check it
even if you
decoder wrote:
> We recently discovered that even our own mailserver (Postfix) was a
> backscatter source (and 1-2 weeks ago spammers started to actively use
> it), there were several reasons and I'd like to share these points with
> the list so nobody does the same mistakes.
Thanks for the dis
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
2008/4/9, John Hardin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, mouss wrote:
Thanks for confirming that spf doesn't fix the problem.
There's no silver bullet. SPF will tend to reduce the problem.
Would't DKIM help also? I've implemented both
mouss wrote:
he's not the only one... seems there's a lot of backscatter coming in
these days.
I guess the reason is that it is so easy to make a mistake in a
mailserver configuration that enables backscatter...
We recently discovered that even our own mailserver (Postfix) was a
backscatter
2008/4/9, John Hardin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, mouss wrote:
>
>
> > Thanks for confirming that spf doesn't fix the problem.
> >
>
> There's no silver bullet. SPF will tend to reduce the problem.
Would't DKIM help also? I've implemented both methods, and encouraged
my colleagues
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, mouss wrote:
Thanks for confirming that spf doesn't fix the problem.
There's no silver bullet. SPF will tend to reduce the problem.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED
Jonathan Nichols wrote:
Yup. Even used the wizard and that exact same verification tool, as
well as dnsstuff.com and it reports that the SPF records I added are
just fine.
Yet, I still got plenty of junk thanks to some russian spammer using
my hostmaster@ as the From. :(
But back on topi
On Apr 9, 2008, at 2:16 PM, mouss wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 19:04, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
Guys? He's been joe-jobbed.
From the original email: "somebody is using my email as the
bounce- back return email.
How do I avoid the problem?"
If SPF is supposed to prev
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 19:04, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
Guys? He's been joe-jobbed.
From the original email: "somebody is using my email as the bounce-
back return email.
How do I avoid the problem?"
If SPF is supposed to prevent this, I can say that it sure as heck
On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 19:04, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2008, at 2:50 PM, McDonald, Dan wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 12:36 -0700, ahgu wrote:
> >> They forged the header with my email addr as the return address.
> >> When it get bounced back by a server, everything is valid. Sin
On Apr 8, 2008, at 2:50 PM, McDonald, Dan wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 12:36 -0700, ahgu wrote:
They forged the header with my email addr as the return address.
When it get bounced back by a server, everything is valid. Since
the server
strip off most of the content, it can pass the spamass
> On Tue, April 8, 2008 21:10, ahgu wrote:
>
> > Delivery to the following recipient has been delayed:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Message will be retried for 2 more day(s)
On 08.04.08 21:20, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> what mta have 2 days of notifying as default ?
the bounce was from g
On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 12:36 -0700, ahgu wrote:
> They forged the header with my email addr as the return address.
> When it get bounced back by a server, everything is valid. Since the server
> strip off most of the content, it can pass the spamassassin very easily. I
> wonder if anyone got this
They forged the header with my email addr as the return address.
When it get bounced back by a server, everything is valid. Since the server
strip off most of the content, it can pass the spamassassin very easily. I
wonder if anyone got this problem?
Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apri
On Tue, April 8, 2008 21:10, ahgu wrote:
> Delivery to the following recipient has been delayed:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Message will be retried for 2 more day(s)
what mta have 2 days of notifying as default ?
solutiion is more to stop notifying :-)
its imho not a spam problem, just a
On Tue, April 8, 2008 21:04, Evan Platt wrote:
> SPF is a good start...
> http://spf.pobox.com/
moved to http://openspf.org/
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
Another email:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on xphotonics.com
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=URI_HEX autolearn=no
version=3.2.4
X-Spam-Pyzor: Reported 0 times.
X-Spam-Report:
* 1.3 URI_HEX URI: URI hostname has long hex
SPF is a good start...
http://spf.pobox.com/
Do you actually have a [EMAIL PROTECTED] account? If not, don't
accept mail for invalid e-mail addresses.
ahgu wrote:
somebody is using my email as the bounce-back return email.
How do I avoid the problem?
thanks
Andrew
X-Spam-Checker-Version: Sp
46 matches
Mail list logo
