Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:58:44 -0500 From: eculp@casasponti.net To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I've just found a new and interesting spam source - legitimate bounce messages Message-ID: <20081016115844.17qwm4xcs6jkg84oc@intranet.casasponti.net> In-Reply-To: <20081016173807.64d0f24e@gumby.homeunix.com.> 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> <20081016173807.64d0f24e@gumby.homeunix.com.>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> escribi=F3: > 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. I feel the same way and thanks for adding some humor to the situation. ed > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.or= g" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081016115844.17qwm4xcs6jkg84oc>