Re: [SLUG] Re: Verisign wildcard DNS hijacks .net and .com for advertising purposes

2003-09-17 Thread Stewart
gee and i was having such a quiet week too. hope the following is useful to someone anyway... Begin forwarded message: From: Justin Shore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu Sep 18, 2003 9:57:33 AM Australia/Sydney To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] Re: how to undo Verisigns mess Reply-

Re: [SLUG] Re: Verisign wildcard DNS hijacks .net and .com for advertising purposes

2003-09-16 Thread Stewart
here's an interesting take on it from the mimedefang mailing list: (this thing is the talk of the town...) On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 10:20 PM, David F. Skoll wrote: For now, I suggest just waiting and seeing. Once a large number of spammers start sending mail from faked domains, the

Re: [SLUG] Re: Verisign wildcard DNS hijacks .net and .com for advertising purposes

2003-09-16 Thread Robert Collins
On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 21:21, Martin wrote: > this also breaks tests used in antispam configurations (ie. postfix's > reject_unknown_sender_domain) So, any bets on how much the spammers paid verisign to do this? Rob -- GPG key available at: .

Re: [SLUG] Re: Verisign wildcard DNS hijacks .net and .com for advertising purposes

2003-09-16 Thread Robert Collins
On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 21:17, Martin wrote: > it's basically a graceful faliure mode in the absence of MX records. Somewhat more - it means that if you send mail to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', it will, by default, be delivered to that specific machine. MX records then allow the consolidation of mail serv

Re: [SLUG] Re: Verisign wildcard DNS hijacks .net and .com for advertising purposes

2003-09-16 Thread Martin
$author = "Ian Wienand" ; > > although there is a dummy SMTP server at that IP, I'd say that is > there because if it wasn't, other than getting an error you'd get > timeouts. But futher, there is no MX record so mail should never get > that far. if there is a typo in your zone file then the fol

Re: [SLUG] Re: Verisign wildcard DNS hijacks .net and .com for advertising purposes

2003-09-16 Thread Martin
$author = "Ian Wienand" ; > > True -- i didn't realise this. For those interested, seems to be a > requirement of RFC974. I wonder what prompted the author to give the > 'benefit of the doubt' to servers with no MX records? Historical > reasons? it's basically a graceful faliure mode in the ab

Re: [SLUG] Re: Verisign wildcard DNS hijacks .net and .com for advertising purposes

2003-09-15 Thread Ian Wienand
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 05:53:39AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote: > you don't need an MX record.. an A is tried if no MX exists.. True -- i didn't realise this. For those interested, seems to be a requirement of RFC974. I wonder what prompted the author to give the 'benefit of the doubt' to servers w

Re: [SLUG] Re: Verisign wildcard DNS hijacks .net and .com for advertising purposes

2003-09-15 Thread Dave Airlie
> > although there is a dummy SMTP server at that IP, I'd say that is > there because if it wasn't, other than getting an error you'd get > timeouts. But futher, there is no MX record so mail should never get > that far. you don't need an MX record.. an A is tried if no MX exists.. Dave. > > --

Re: [SLUG] Re: Verisign wildcard DNS hijacks .net and .com for advertising purposes

2003-09-15 Thread Ian Wienand
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 02:34:30PM +1000, Mary Gardiner wrote: > It also does a nice job of destroying the "non-existant sender" spam > defense, since every non-existant .com and .net apparently now has a > mail server: > http://linuxchix.org/pipermail/techtalk/2003-September/016294.html well i'm

[SLUG] Re: Verisign wildcard DNS hijacks .net and .com for advertising purposes

2003-09-15 Thread Mary Gardiner
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003, Mary Gardiner wrote: > Point your browser at http://dfgdfgsfdgd.net/ or > http://sfhjsjfhkshfjshdfjkhsdfhjsd.net/ or > http://www.fdjlfdjkfdskdsfhjdsfhjdshdsfjkl.com/ > > Those .net domains aren't registered... but they now point at a Verisign > webpage rather than not resolv