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@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 ---------------------------