Spammers Skirt IP Authentication Attempts

Wed Sep 8 11:46:30 UTC 2004

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, vijay gill wrote:

And randomgibberish.comcast.net will still be in all the dynamic 
blacklists.

I'm subscribed to both the SpamAssassin list, and this one.

This is getting seriously off-topic.

If you like SPF, embrace it.  If not, don't.

This may very well be one of the things that time will tell on, much like 
open relays, which were considered harmless, or things like telnet, which 
used to be a complete standard, and now, my *remote reboot* units come SSH 
capable.  Spamassassin and other spam control technologies are choosing 
to.  It's ONE PIECE of a very large solution.  It's a solution to domain 
forging, not to spam.  (nothing in this paragraph is anything new to this 
list in the past week).

Can we please get on with our lives?

Thanks

-Dan Mahoney

>
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:54:32AM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
>>
>> Except that, SPF records are as easy to setup for a spammer, as for
>> you and I. If the above is a spammer, then SPF for foobar.com will
>> list randomgibberish.comcast.net as an authorised sender.
>>
>> SPF will absolutely not have any effect on spam.
>
> But if instead of foobar.com, it is vix.com or citibank.com, then their
> SPF records will not point at randomgibberish.comcast.net as an
> authorized sender. That means that if I do get a mail purporting to be
> from citi from randomgibberish, I can junk it without hesitation.
>
> /vijay
>

--

"It's three o'clock in the morning.  It's too late for 'oops'.  After
Locate Updates, don't even go there."

-Paul Baecker
  January 3, 2k
  Indeed, sometime after 3AM

--------Dan Mahoney--------
Techie,  Sysadmin,  WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144   AIM: LarpGM
Site:  http://www.gushi.org
---------------------------