AT&T SMTP Admin contact?

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Wed Dec 2 21:52:22 CST 2009


On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:38:54 CST, Chris Owen said:
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> 
> > Because SenderID and SPF have no anti-spam value, and almost no
> > anti-forgery value.  Not that this stops a *lot* of people who've drunk
> > the kool-aid from trying to use them anyway,
>
> OK, I'll bite--How exactly do you go about forging email from my domain
> name if the host receiving it is checking SPF?

It only stops forgery if the SPF record has a -all in it (as hubris.net does).
However, a lot of domains (mine included) have a ~all instead.

(And before anybody asks, yes ~all is what we want, and no you can't ask us
to try -all instead, unless we're allowed to send you all the helpdesk calls
about misconfigured migratory laptops".. ;)


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20091202/53b947e5/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list