On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Michael Holstein wrote:
>
> > 3. Spammers abusing your webmail and/or remote message submission service
> > using phished credentials.
>
> I'll admit .. this has happened a few times too. Usually we see the
> incoming phish attempt and configure an outbound block for RE: (same
>
> 3. Spammers abusing your webmail and/or remote message submission service
> using phished credentials.
>
I'll admit .. this has happened a few times too. Usually we see the
incoming phish attempt and configure an outbound block for RE: (same
subject) and it never fails .. we catch at least o
Absolutely #3 - far more of a threat than #1 and #2.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Three :-)
>
>> 1. Forwarding users on your campus - with mailboxes that accept a lot
>> of spam and then forward it over to student / alumni AOL, Comcast,
>> Yahoo etc accounts
>> 2. Spam gen
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> As for a university smarthost getting blocked you'd probably need to
> look at one of two things -
Three :-)
> 1. Forwarding users on your campus - with mailboxes that accept a lot
> of spam and then forward it over to student / alumni AOL, Co
>I would love to know how the marketplace wants to handle "Official Mail,"
>but I'm not expecting useful answers here.
The marketplace doesn't have a clue. We have a plenty of tools in the
toolbox, from heavyweight S/MIME to lighter weight DKIM+VBR to
proprietary Goodmail, but among the mailers
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Michael Holstein
wrote:
>
> Personally, I think SPF is a major PITA operations-wise .. but if you've
> ever had to fill out the form to get un-blacklisted at Yahoo/AOL, that's
> one of the first things they ask .. "do you have a spfv1 record defined?".
With yahoo
On Dec 7, 2009, at 9:51 AM, Michael Holstein wrote:
>
>> The problem we face is that some people we work with can't do that
>
> Then explain that client-side (their users, to whom they send mail) are
> probably using Hotmail, et.al. and SPF will simply not allow "spoofing" which
> is what the
> The problem we face is that some people we work with can't do that
Then explain that client-side (their users, to whom they send mail) are
probably using Hotmail, et.al. and SPF will simply not allow "spoofing"
which is what they want to do, unless they either :
A) add the SPF record as previo
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Bill Stewart wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
In particular, what anti-forgery/security controls should network operators
implement and check; and what anti-forgery/security controls should network
operators not implement or check?
Depends a bit o
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> In particular, what anti-forgery/security controls should network operators
> implement and check; and what anti-forgery/security controls should network
> operators not implement or check?
Depends a bit on whether you're counting inbound-mail
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, John Levine wrote:
than the other way around, believing that it prevent forgery, having
redefined "forgery" as whatever it is that SPF prevents. As the
operator of one of the world's more heavily forged domains (abuse.net)
I can report that if you think it prevents forgery bl
John,
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: John R. Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Dezember 2009 01:54
> An: Andre Engel
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: SPF Configurations
>
> >> Right. The only major mail system that pays at
Jeffrey Negro wrote:
SPF seems to be the way we could possibly
avoid more spam filters, and delivery rate is very important to our
company.
You've seen the anti-SPF rants. At the least, they should make clear to you
that you should use SPF only and exactly for specific destinations that
On 2009-12-4, at 7:25, John Levine wrote:
> The only major mail system that pays attention to SPF is
> Hotmail
FWIW, GMX (pretty popular in Europe) does too.
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Right. The only major mail system that pays attention to SPF is
Hotmail, but there are enough small poorly run MTAs that use it that
an SPF record which lists your outbounds and ~all (not -all) can be
marginally useful to avoid bogus rejections of your mail.
For example :
[ various large ISPs t
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Jeffrey Negro wrote:
> I'm wondering if a few DNS experts out there could give me some input on
> SPF record configuration. Our company sends out about 50k - 100k emails
> a day, and most emails are on behalf of customers to their end users at
SPF records aren't g
e unlawful. If you have
received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender
by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any
attachments.
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: John Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Dezemb
rey
-Original Message-
From: Graeme Fowler [mailto:gra...@graemef.net]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 1:59 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: RE: SPF Configurations
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 11:45 -0500, Jeffrey Negro wrote:
> Thanks for your input on this. My main concern is mail filters at the
>
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 11:45 -0500, Jeffrey Negro wrote:
> Thanks for your input on this. My main concern is mail filters at the
> end users side thinking that our mail servers are spoofing our
> customer's domain.
If you really feel that SPF is going to help, then keep all the mail in
your domain
>> If the customer insist on using their domain, then you would have to have
>> the customer setup an SPF record within their domain that points to your
>> email server IP blocks.
Right. The only major mail system that pays attention to SPF is
Hotmail, but there are enough small poorly run MTAs t
2009/12/4 Bret Clark
> If the customer insist on using their domain, then you would have to have
> the customer setup an SPF record within their domain that points to your
> email server IP blocks. I would just tell your customer that if they insist
> of using their FROM domain, to help get past
proving Your Billing, Improving Your Business
www.billtrust.com
609.235.1010 x137
jne...@billtrust.com
-Original Message-
From: Joe St Sauver [mailto:j...@oregon.uoregon.edu]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 11:25 AM
To: Jeffrey Negro
Subject: Re: SPF Configurations
#Some customers insist on
#mak
ltrust.com
609.235.1010 x137
jne...@billtrust.com
-Original Message-
From: Joe St Sauver [mailto:j...@oregon.uoregon.edu]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 11:25 AM
To: Jeffrey Negro
Subject: Re: SPF Configurations
#Some customers insist on
#making the FROM address use their domain name, but
I'm wondering if a few DNS experts out there could give me some input on
SPF record configuration. Our company sends out about 50k - 100k emails
a day, and most emails are on behalf of customers to their end users at
various domains (no, we're not spammers, these are email notifications
the end us
24 matches
Mail list logo
