+1
John C Klensin пишет:
+1
Well, OK. Let me rephrase my question: why do you believe
that removing the IETF's MX record will
a) decrease the amount of spam it receives?
b) not damage its legitimate mail flow?
Based on my experience and that of other people, neither is
true.
R's,
Joh
On 27 Feb 2010, at 13:49, John R. Levine wrote:
there is an MX. Where did you get the idea that not having an MX
>>> offers protection from spambots?
>>
>> That's interesting, but not what I described.
>
> Well, OK. Let me rephrase my question: why do you believe that removing the
> IETF's MX
+1
--On Saturday, February 27, 2010 08:49 -0500 "John R. Levine"
wrote:
>>> there is an MX. Where did you get the idea that not having
>>> an MX offers protection from spambots?
>>
>> That's interesting, but not what I described.
>
> Well, OK. Let me rephrase my question: why do you believe
there is an MX. Where did you get the idea that not having an MX
offers protection from spambots?
That's interesting, but not what I described.
Well, OK. Let me rephrase my question: why do you believe that removing
the IETF's MX record will
a) decrease the amount of spam it receives?
b)
On 26 Feb 2010, at 16:45, SM wrote:
At 20:11 25-02-10, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
>> Discussion, please. See below for my take; the IETF is one host, MX is
>> really meaningless, and there are benefits to avoiding a ton of spambot
>> zombie spam.
>
> While we are on this topic, which of the fo
On 26 Feb 2010, at 15:42, John Levine wrote:
mail.ietf.org. is ietf.org., so you can remove your MX records for
ietf.org. This should cut down on spam since a lot of spambots
will skip over domains whose MX list cannot be obtained. Real
mailers will of course fall back to A/
@ietf.org;
postmas...@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rt.ietf.org #24364] mail.ietf.org. is ietf.org.,Remove MX
Records For Less Spam
On 26 Feb 2010, at 05:19, Dean Anderson wrote:
I get spam to hosts with MX records. I don't think removing MX records
> will have any effect on spam. Spambots, aren
On 26 Feb 2010, at 05:19, Dean Anderson wrote:
I get spam to hosts with MX records. I don't think removing MX records
> will have any effect on spam. Spambots, aren't fully autonomous agents
I just transitioned my email host for a few small domains, and didn't trouble
to bring along the MX recor
--On Friday, February 26, 2010 6:49 AM + John Levine
wrote:
Discussion, please. See below for my take; the IETF is one host, MX is
really meaningless, and there are benefits to avoiding a ton of spambot
zombie spam.
That's not a very good idea. I wouldn't count on zombies ignoring t
Hi Sabahattin,
At 20:11 25-02-10, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
Discussion, please. See below for my take; the IETF is one host, MX
is really meaningless, and there are benefits to avoiding a ton of
spambot zombie spam.
While we are on this topic, which of the following methods would you
recom
>>> mail.ietf.org. is ietf.org., so you can remove your MX records for
>>> ietf.org. This should cut down on spam since a lot of spambots
>>> will skip over domains whose MX list cannot be obtained. Real
>>> mailers will of course fall back to A/ as per RFC 2821/5321. A
>>> few hosts
;Glen via RT"
Date: 25 February 2010 18:16:44 GMT
To: m...@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com
Subject: [rt.ietf.org #24364] mail.ietf.org. is ietf.org., Remove MX Records
For Less Spam
Reply-To: ietf-act...@ietf.org
in-reply-to:<30d38818-daa2-4439-a168-3aed6b3e0...@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com>
referen
>Discussion, please. See below for my take; the IETF is one host, MX is really
>meaningless, and there are
>benefits to avoiding a ton of spambot zombie spam.
That's not a very good idea. I wouldn't count on zombies ignoring the
IETF, nor would I count on there not being real MTAs that will hic
koglu.com
> Subject: [rt.ietf.org #24364] mail.ietf.org. is ietf.org., Remove MX Records
> For Less Spam
> Reply-To: ietf-act...@ietf.org
> in-reply-to: <30d38818-daa2-4439-a168-3aed6b3e0...@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com>
> references:
> <30d38818-daa2-4439-a168-3aed6b3e0...@sabaha
14 matches
Mail list logo
