Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:11:07 -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: <20081016121107.17qwm4xcs6kgwg884@intranet.casasponti.net> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Luke Dean <LukeD@pobox.com> escribi=F3: > > > On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Matthew Seaman wrote: > >> Until the wonderful day that the entire internet abides by these =20 >> rules[*], use >> of technologies like SPF and DKIM can discourage but not entirely =20 >> prevent the >> spammers from joe-jobbing you. > > I just started getting these bouncebacks en masse this week. > My mail provider publishes SPF records. > If the names and numbers in the bouceback messages are to be =20 > believed, however, the spammers have defeated SPF by hijacking DNS. =20 > The poor recipients never see my SPF records because they're looking =20 > at the wrong IP address. Thanks, Matthew. I guess that is the root problem of spf, the =20 spammers, that it is supposed to stop. It looks a bit like our =20 economy, a loosing battle. It really make me feel impotent this morning. Have a great day, ed
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081016121107.17qwm4xcs6kgwg884>