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 recor
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; C
on 9/1/2011 1:14 PM Kenneth Porter spake the following:
> On Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:43 PM -0700 Scott Silva
> 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 d
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 Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:43 PM -0700 Scott Silva
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 from you. It protect
on 9/1/2011 10:39 AM Kenneth Porter spake the following:
> --On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 5:48 PM -0400 Mailing Lists
> 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 u
--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 5:48 PM -0400 Mailing Lists
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. Unfortunately some server
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
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
http://list
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 Rep
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 th
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 tha
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
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
>>> e
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,
>>> wi
http://www.openspf.org/Introduction - SPF FTW
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Stephen Harris 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
> > > address, which
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
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 perce
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 harveste
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
>>
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 mail
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,
>>
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, wrote:
> Stephen Harris wrote:
> >> Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some scum, apparently in eastern
> >> Europe, has harvested my email, and is us
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
> 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
> co
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
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 t
27 matches
Mail list logo
