--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 5:48 PM -0400 Mailing Lists
mailingl...@theflux.net wrote:
http://www.openspf.org/Introduction - SPF FTW
DKIM is another possibility.
Blizzard (the game company) signs some (not all) of its mail with DKIM, and
I use that to spot obvious account-theft scams.
on 9/1/2011 10:39 AM Kenneth Porter spake the following:
--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 5:48 PM -0400 Mailing Lists
mailingl...@theflux.net wrote:
http://www.openspf.org/Introduction - SPF FTW
DKIM is another possibility.
Blizzard (the game company) signs some (not all) of its mail with
On Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:43 PM -0700 Scott Silva
ssi...@sgvwater.com wrote:
I get TONS of spam with legitimate DKIM signatures...
DKIM and SPF do not stop you from getting spam. Their purpose is to keep
you from getting joe-jobbed, by declaring to the world which mail really
came
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:43 -0700, Scott Silva wrote:
I get TONS of spam with legitimate DKIM signatures...
How is that possible ?
Paul.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
on 9/1/2011 1:14 PM Kenneth Porter spake the following:
On Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:43 PM -0700 Scott Silva
ssi...@sgvwater.com wrote:
I get TONS of spam with legitimate DKIM signatures...
DKIM and SPF do not stop you from getting spam. Their purpose is to keep
you from getting
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011, Always Learning wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:43 -0700, Scott Silva wrote:
I get TONS of spam with legitimate DKIM signatures...
How is that possible ?
The spam comes from Yahoo! or perhaps Google groups?
Bill
--
INTERNET: b...@celestial.com Bill Campbell;
On 01/09/11 22:10, Always Learning wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:43 -0700, Scott Silva wrote:
I get TONS of spam with legitimate DKIM signatures...
How is that possible ?
Because spammers know how to sign their email with DKIM signatures too,
same as spammers can set an SPF record in
Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some scum, apparently in eastern
Europe, has harvested my email, and is using it in the Reply-To: in its
spamming efforts. Now, I realize that some mails go out from noreply, but
other than that, is there a good reason why a mailserver would not be
configured
On 08/31/2011 01:16 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some scum, apparently in eastern
Europe, has harvested my email, and is using it in the Reply-To: in its
spamming efforts. Now, I realize that some mails go out from noreply, but
other than that, is there a
Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some scum, apparently in eastern
Europe, has harvested my email, and is using it in the Reply-To: in its
spamming efforts. Now, I realize that some mails go out from noreply, but
other than that, is there a good reason why a mailserver would not be
Stephen Harris wrote:
Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some scum, apparently in eastern
Europe, has harvested my email, and is using it in the Reply-To: in its
spamming efforts. Now, I realize that some mails go out from noreply,
but
other than that, is there a good reason why a
Spam filter that'll authorize the sending before receiving? Just a thought
to stop the hundreds of emails...
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:27 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Stephen Harris wrote:
Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some scum, apparently in eastern
Europe, has harvested my email,
On 08/31/2011 01:27 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Stephen Harris wrote:
Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some scum, apparently in eastern
Europe, has harvested my email, and is using it in the Reply-To: in its
spamming efforts. Now, I realize that some mails go out from noreply,
but
other
Josh Miller wrote:
On 08/31/2011 01:27 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Stephen Harris wrote:
Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some scum, apparently in eastern
Europe, has harvested my email, and is using it in the Reply-To: in
its spamming efforts. Now, I realize that some mails go out from
On 08/31/2011 01:33 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Josh Miller wrote:
On 08/31/2011 01:27 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Stephen Harris wrote:
Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some scum, apparently in eastern
Europe, has harvested my email, and is using it in the Reply-To: in
its spamming
On 08/31/2011 01:37 PM, Josh Miller wrote:
On 08/31/2011 01:33 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Josh Miller wrote:
On 08/31/2011 01:27 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Stephen Harris wrote:
Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some scum, apparently in eastern
Europe, has harvested my email, and is
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 04:27:00PM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Stephen Harris wrote:
Anyway, the SMTP server should send the delivery failure to the envelope
address, which may be different to both the From and Reply-To addresses.
That would be lovely. Unfortunately, a high percentage
On 8/31/2011 4:37 PM, Josh Miller wrote:
On 08/31/2011 01:33 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
You're saying it uses the envelope, not if exists Reply-To, else From? The
problem I have with that is that a few of them have returned the email,
with full headers, and I see the *only* reference to my
http://www.openspf.org/Introduction - SPF FTW
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Stephen Harris li...@spuddy.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 04:27:00PM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Stephen Harris wrote:
Anyway, the SMTP server should send the delivery failure to the
envelope
On 08/31/2011 01:48 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 8/31/2011 4:37 PM, Josh Miller wrote:
On 08/31/2011 01:33 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
You're saying it uses the envelope, not if exists Reply-To, else From? The
problem I have with that is that a few of them have returned the email,
with full
Josh Miller wrote:
On 08/31/2011 01:37 PM, Josh Miller wrote:
On 08/31/2011 01:33 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Josh Miller wrote:
On 08/31/2011 01:27 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Stephen Harris wrote:
Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some scum, apparently in
eastern Europe, has harvested
On 08/31/2011 01:57 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Josh Miller wrote:
On 08/31/2011 01:37 PM, Josh Miller wrote:
On 08/31/2011 01:33 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Josh Miller wrote:
On 08/31/2011 01:27 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Stephen Harris wrote:
Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some
On 8/31/2011 4:50 PM, Josh Miller wrote:
On 08/31/2011 01:48 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 8/31/2011 4:37 PM, Josh Miller wrote:
On 08/31/2011 01:33 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
You're saying it uses the envelope, not if exists Reply-To, else From? The
problem I have with that is that a few of
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 16:16 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some scum, apparently in eastern
Europe, has harvested my email, and is using it in the Reply-To: in its
spamming efforts. Now, I realize that some mails go out from noreply, but
other than that,
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 16:33 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
You're saying it uses the envelope, not if exists Reply-To, else From? The
problem I have with that is that a few of them have returned the email,
with full headers, and I see the *only* reference to my email address is
in the
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 13:50 -0700, Josh Miller wrote:
That is not true as the remote server will present the envelope header
to your mail server upon connection.
Surely the FROM is ?
Paul
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some scum, apparently in eastern
Europe, has harvested my email, and is using it in the Reply-To: in its
spamming efforts. Now, I realize that some mails go out from noreply, but
other than that, is there a good
27 matches
Mail list logo
