On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Chris Owen wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 9:52 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> It only stops forgery if the SPF record has a -all in it (as hubris.net
>> does).
>> However, a lot of domains (mine included) have a ~all instead.
>
> I guess I've never really see
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Chris Owen [mailto:ow...@hubris.net]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2009 07:25
> An: NANOG list
> Betreff: Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact?
>
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 9:52 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> > It on
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
(And before anybody asks, yes ~all is what we want, and no you can't ask us
to try -all instead, unless we're allowed to send you all the helpdesk calls
about misconfigured migratory laptops".. ;)
While I'll remain neutral about the specifics o
On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:42 AM, John Levine wrote:
> I also agree that any domain with live users (as opposed to mail
> cannons sending ads or transaction confirmations) is likely to
> experience pain with -all from all the overenthusiastic little MTAs
> whose managers imagine that "stopping forgery"
John Levine wrote:
I guess I've never really seen the point of publishing a SPF record if
it ends in ~all. What are people supposed to do with that info?
Get your mail delivered to Hotmail, the last significant outpost of
SPF/Sender-ID. Other than that, I agree it's useless.
I also agree tha
>I guess I've never really seen the point of publishing a SPF record if
>it ends in ~all. What are people supposed to do with that info?
Get your mail delivered to Hotmail, the last significant outpost of
SPF/Sender-ID. Other than that, I agree it's useless.
I also agree that any domain with li
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Chris Owen wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
>> Because SenderID and SPF have no anti-spam value, and almost no
>> anti-forgery value. Not that this stops a *lot* of people who've drunk
>> the kool-aid from trying to use them anyway,
>
>
On Dec 2, 2009, at 9:52 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> It only stops forgery if the SPF record has a -all in it (as hubris.net does).
> However, a lot of domains (mine included) have a ~all instead.
I guess I've never really seen the point of publishing a SPF record if it ends
in ~all. Wh
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:38:54 CST, Chris Owen said:
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
> > Because SenderID and SPF have no anti-spam value, and almost no
> > anti-forgery value. Not that this stops a *lot* of people who've drunk
> > the kool-aid from trying to use them anyway,
On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> Because SenderID and SPF have no anti-spam value, and almost no
> anti-forgery value. Not that this stops a *lot* of people who've drunk
> the kool-aid from trying to use them anyway,
OK, I'll bite--How exactly do you go about forging email fro
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:50:54AM -0500, Brad Laue wrote:
> Exclusionary blocklists are a great idea if they're constantly
> maintained. I'm unclear as to why mail administrators don't work more
> proactively with things like SenderID and SPF, as these seem to be far
> more maintainable in t
Brad Laue wrote:
Ah, very true. Still really hoping to get in touch with someone from AT&T. :-)
Good luck. You might be a better response from posting a video
complaint on Youtube. "AT&T Breaks Guitars" perhaps. :-)
Justin
On 2009-11-24, at 6:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:38:33 EST, Brad Laue said:
>
>> True, but wouldn't a blacklist of SPF records for known spam issuing
>> domains be a more maintainable list than an IP block whitelist?
>>
>> (I'm no doubt missing something very ob
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:38:33 EST, Brad Laue said:
> True, but wouldn't a blacklist of SPF records for known spam issuing
> domains be a more maintainable list than an IP block whitelist?
>
> (I'm no doubt missing something very obvious with this question)
140M+ .com where a malicious DNS server
On November 24, 2009, Brad Laue wrote:
> True, but wouldn't a blacklist of SPF records for known spam issuing
> domains be a more maintainable list than an IP block whitelist?
>
> (I'm no doubt missing something very obvious with this question)
>
> Brad
>
Yes, I think you are :) First of all,
On 2009-11-24, at 1:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>
> valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:50:54 EST, Brad Laue said:
>>> maintained. I'm unclear as to why mail administrators don't work more
>>> proactively with things like SenderID and SPF, as these seem to be far
>>> mor
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:50:54 EST, Brad Laue said:
>> maintained. I'm unclear as to why mail administrators don't work more
>> proactively with things like SenderID and SPF, as these seem to be far
>> more maintainable in the long-run than an ever-growing list of
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:50:54 EST, Brad Laue said:
> maintained. I'm unclear as to why mail administrators don't work more
> proactively with things like SenderID and SPF, as these seem to be far
> more maintainable in the long-run than an ever-growing list of IP
> address ranges.
There's a diff
Patrick Tracanelli wrote:
Brad Laue escreveu:
Hi all,
Would I be able to get an AT&T mail administrator to contact me off-list? We've
recently moved our mailservers to a new IP address range, and the standard CGI
forms haven't produced any progress for us in over a week now. Unfortunately
Brad Laue escreveu:
> Hi all,
>
> Would I be able to get an AT&T mail administrator to contact me off-list?
> We've recently moved our mailservers to a new IP address range, and the
> standard CGI forms haven't produced any progress for us in over a week now.
> Unfortunately this affects dozens
Hi all,
Would I be able to get an AT&T mail administrator to contact me off-list? We've
recently moved our mailservers to a new IP address range, and the standard CGI
forms haven't produced any progress for us in over a week now. Unfortunately
this affects dozens of hosted clients...
The CGI f
21 matches
Mail list logo
