From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Oct 16 16:50:11 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 614571065692
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:50:11 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from fbsd06+2Y=2c6cacb6@mlists.homeunix.com)
Received: from fallback-in1.mxes.net (fallback-out1.mxes.net [216.86.168.190])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331AD8FC12
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:50:11 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from fbsd06+2Y=2c6cacb6@mlists.homeunix.com)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183])
	by fallback-in1.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817DC1640CF
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:38:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from gumby.homeunix.com. (unknown [87.81.140.128])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C20D0B6D;
	Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:38:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:38:07 +0100
From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20081016173807.64d0f24e@gumby.homeunix.com.>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0810160846040.473@border.lukas.is-a-geek.org>
References: <20081016090102.17qwm4xcs6f4so8ok@intranet.casasponti.net>
	<20081016145255.GA12638@icarus.home.lan>
	<48F75A88.1000507@infracaninophile.co.uk>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.0810160846040.473@border.lukas.is-a-geek.org>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.11; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Luke Dean <LukeD@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: I've just found a new and interesting spam source - legitimate
 bounce messages
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:50:11 -0000

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
Luke Dean <LukeD@pobox.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> 
> > Until the wonderful day that the entire internet abides by these
> > rules[*], use
> > of technologies like SPF and DKIM can discourage but not entirely
> > prevent the spammers from joe-jobbing you.
> 
> I just started getting these bouncebacks en masse this week.
> My mail provider publishes SPF records.

SPF increases the probability of spam being rejected at the smtp
level at MX servers, so my expectation would be that it would exacerbate
backscatter not improve it. 

Many people recommend SPF for backscatter, but I've yet to hear a cogent
argument for why it helps beyond the very optimistic hope that spammers
will check that their spam is spf compliant.