Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:35:08 -0500 From: eculp@casasponti.net To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I've just found a new and interesting spam source - legitimate bounce messages Message-ID: <20081016123508.17qwm4xcs6kgwg8so@intranet.casasponti.net> In-Reply-To: <20081016181925.0af7e1d7@gumby.homeunix.com.> 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> <20081016181925.0af7e1d7@gumby.homeunix.com.>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> escribi=F3: > 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. I see that but it still touched my funny bone but the problem is how =20 many mail servers and admins completely ignore SPF and what happens to =20 those who do try to comply? I'm sure that the hundreds of bounces =20 that I have received are minimal in comparison to the delivered email. =20 In fact many are reporting that a user is "over quota" Thanks, ed
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081016123508.17qwm4xcs6kgwg8so>