Hi Jeremy,
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:35:54 +1000 Jeremy Visser jer...@visser.name wrote:
On 11/07/14 14:27, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Well, if for no other reason than that many ISPs insist that you use
their mail server for outgoing email
Who does this? I would invite you to name-and-shame
Hi,
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 17:05:35 +1000 Stephen Rothwell s...@rothwell.id.au wrote:
And some clients don't seem to have even heard of port 587 - STARTTLS
was only originally codified in 1998, made a draft standard in 2006 and
standardised in 2011. Imagine using such new fangled stuff! :-)
On 11/07/14 15:44, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Why anonymous - can't you require them to STARTTLS+AUTH, even on port 25?
Some people have their head in the sand and continue to purchase equipment that
doesn't support TLS nor SMTP authentication. And proceed to blame me when it
doesn't work.
I'd
To sum up: SPF is one of those cases where geeks will talk among
themselves and nobody else will notice.
--
David Boxall| Any given program,
| when running correctly,
http://david.boxall.id.au | is obsolete.
Hi Hamish,
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 17:55:27 +1000 Hamish Moffatt ham...@cloud.net.au wrote:
It also doesn't help for those with email addresses in domains that
other people using the same domain post from lots of different places.
(e.g. other members of my family use various ISP's outgoing
On 11/07/14 14:27, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Well, if for no other reason than that many ISPs insist that you use
their mail server for outgoing email
Who does this? I would invite you to name-and-shame them.
But before you do so, check that you are sending outbound as port 587
(STARTTLS) or
On 11/07/14 15:35, Jeremy Visser wrote:
On 11/07/14 14:27, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Well, if for no other reason than that many ISPs insist that you use
their mail server for outgoing email
Who does this? I would invite you to name-and-shame them.
But before you do so, check that you are
I've had two email returned advisories where my address has been
spoofed (see below).
I can't figure out the the motivation for this. There was an embedded
link in the message (no I didn't click on it), but the whole email
aspect is fake.
What is the payoff to the sender?
Jan
pS: I did have my
On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 16:04 +1000, Jan Whitaker wrote:
I've had two email returned advisories where my address has been
spoofed (see below).
I can't figure out the the motivation for this. There was an embedded
link in the message (no I didn't click on it), but the whole email
aspect is
At 04:35 PM 9/07/2014, Karl Auer you wrote:
It's because spammers now routinely use other people's addresses as the
sending addresses that getting mad at the apparent sender is pointless.
The apparent sender is almost certainly not the actual sender.
Thanks. Makes perfect sense now.
Bottom line:
On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 16:44 +1000, JanW wrote:
What is interesting is that when this happens, I seldom get any
complaints to me about the original email, so at least that's
something positive. I just get the mailbox full, dead address results.
You'll only ever get a complaint if the spam
Hi Karl,
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 16:58:06 +1000 Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 16:44 +1000, JanW wrote:
What is interesting is that when this happens, I seldom get any
complaints to me about the original email, so at least that's
something positive. I just get
On 09/07/14 16:35, Karl Auer wrote:
If you are asking why the sender address used was yours, it is for
several reasons: Spammers like to use real sender addresses, because
they are less likely to be identified as spammy senders. Also, the
backscatter (such as the bounces you received, or the
Hi Hamish,
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 17:27:08 +1000 Hamish Moffatt ham...@cloud.net.au wrote:
Consider implementing SPF to prevent this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework
In summary, through the DNS you publish a list of all servers authorised
to send mail from your domain,
On 2014/Jul/09, at 4:44 PM, JanW wrote:
Bottom line: the internet is still filled with idiots.
got it
That's why spammers. They still get bites. Send a million spams, get a bite,
profit.
Kim
--
Kim Holburn
IT Network Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408 M: +61 404072753
On 9/07/2014 5:27 PM, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
...
Consider implementing SPF ...
That cure is worse than the disease.
--
David Boxall| Perfection is achieved, not when
| there is nothing more to add, but
http://david.boxall.id.au | when
16 matches
Mail list logo
