On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:33:00 +0200
Petr Bena wrote:
> What exactly were you trying to tell me?
I'm trying to tell you that unless we throw out SMTP, there is *no way*
to detect spoofed email. That's because SMTP allows for "legitimate"
spoofing (AKA mailing lists) which makes it impossible to f
Oh, and one more thing...
Even if there were a magic bullet to absolutely detect forged From:
addresses and forged envelope senders... it would not help with
phishing attacks and spoofing. That's because every email reader I've
ever used shows neither the From: address nor the envelope sender by
On Sunday 16 October 2016 at 17:30:19, Dianne Skoll wrote:
> Oh, and one more thing...
>
> ... every email reader I've ever used shows neither the From: address nor
> the envelope sender by default. They all default to showing the full name
> on the From: line, which naturally is impossible to p
> From: "Dianne Skoll "
In my servers, the above string is not RFC compliant,
and therefore the whole mail is automatically
rejected as SPAM.
On Monday 17 October 2016 at 00:08:20, Ruga wrote:
> > From: "Dianne Skoll "
>
> In my servers, the above string is not RFC compliant,
> and therefore the whole mail is automatically
> rejected as SPAM.
I think you misunderstood.
The suggestion was not that email should be sent with this as th
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:08:20 -0400
Ruga wrote:
> In my servers, the above string is not RFC compliant,
> and therefore the whole mail is automatically
> rejected as SPAM.
Your servers fail in RFC comprehension. The message header:
From: "Dianne Skoll "
is absolutely 100% RFC-compliant.
I
On 16 Oct 2016, at 18:08, Ruga wrote:
From: "Dianne Skoll "
In my servers, the above string is not RFC compliant,
Are you writing your own RFC's? That's cool: the IETF could do with some
competition. Where are you publishing them and accepting comments?
The IETF's RFC5322 includes this A
On 2016-10-17 02:18, Dianne Skoll wrote:
From: "Dianne Skoll "
is absolutely 100% RFC-compliant.
lets break test it :)
If you feel it is not, please cite the RFC that's violated, including
the specific section being violated.
one could argue if From:Name and From:Addr have differing doma
>one could argue if From:Name and From:Addr have differing domains its
>forged ?
One could argue that, but one could not argue that my sample From: header is
not RFC-compliant.
Last I checked, Yahoo Groups rewrote the From: header in exactly that manner.
Furthermore, the Quoted-String part of
