Uptick in spam

Colin Johnston colinj at gt86car.org.uk
Tue Oct 27 14:37:03 UTC 2015

hosted gmail did catch some of the spam but not all , into auto junk filter due to some of the weblinks were spammy


> On 27 Oct 2015, at 14:18, Ian Smith <ian.w.smith at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not making any argument about the relation of SPF compliance to message
> quality or spam/ham ratio.  You are no doubt correct that at this point in
> the game SPF doesn't matter with respect to message quality in a larger
> context, because these days messages that are not SPF compliant will simply
> never arrive, and therefore aren't sent.
> I'm saying that SPF helps prevent envelope header forgery, which is what it
> was designed to do.  The fact that NANOG isn't checking SPF (and it isn't,
> I tested) was exploited and resulted in a lot of spam to the list.  This
> wasn't caught by receiving servers (like Gmail's, for example) because they
> checked mail.nanog.org against the nanog.org spf record, which checked out.
> You can argue that envelope header forgery is irrelevant, and that corner
> cases don't matter.  But I think this latest incident provides a good
> counterexample that it does matter.  And it's easy to fix, so why not fix
> it?
> -Ian

More information about the NANOG mailing list