Spammers Skirt IP Authentication Attempts

Wed Sep 8 22:00:54 UTC 2004

Dan:

SPF, SpamAssassin, and other measures are all steps in the right
direction in making spam less of a problem than it is today.  I
applaud you for taking part in their respective forums.

What you fail to realize is that spam is a problem best stopped within
your domain of control.  According to Google, it appears as though you
have a problem with terminating spamming customers, in accordiance
with your own AUP:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ezzi+spam&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&scoring=d

What I found more alarming were this the double standards set forth by
this post:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=5a29bb5.0202260613.3addb4ce%40posting.google.com&rnum=2

I'm sorry, but you aren't entitled to anything.  If you'd like to be
removed from the DNSBL's, you need to remove your offending customers.
 You can't just say "these customers are spammers, block them, don't
block anyone else" and keep collecting a check from them at the end of
the month.

"A los tontos no les dura el dinero."

---Ricardo

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 07:46:30 -0400 (EDT), Dan Mahoney, System Admin
<danm at prime.gushi.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> ---------------------------
> 
>