Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:19:25 +0100 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I've just found a new and interesting spam source - legitimate bounce messages Message-ID: <20081016181925.0af7e1d7@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <20081016115844.17qwm4xcs6jkg84oc@intranet.casasponti.net> 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.> <20081016115844.17qwm4xcs6jkg84oc@intranet.casasponti.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:58:44 -0500 eculp@casasponti.net wrote: > RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> escribi__: > > > 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. Actually that wasn't a joke, some people do cite that as the reason why SPF helps with backscatter, that spammers will leave your domain out of the "mail from" line if you publish SPF records for it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081016181925.0af7e1d7>