[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Uptick in spam

Subject: Uptick in spam
From: ian.w.smith at gmail.com (Ian Smith)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:08:00 -0400
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <CAEZw2byBWRdAk2WWqGAKVs5On6rFQO7k83L-F1AwY6q1kMrgmQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CALeqL2exq_iLrVQWztJFD1EuiG+jdNgYpQjS2p8ZirH8UagZ_w@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]>

But that's not how SPF works.  In SPF, the domain of the envelope header
sender address is checked against that domain's sender policy.  Since
jdlabs.fr has no policy specified, a strict SPF policy at the NANOG server
would have prevented this small issue.

As for the utility of SPF, well.  It's not comprehensive, no one I know
would say that it is.  But it's a bit of a stretch to say that has zero
value.  It would have prevented this latest bit of fun, which seems to have
people upset, so there's *some* value.

-Ian

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Jutta Zalud <ju at netzwerklabor.at> wrote:

> Am 27.10.2015 13:09, schrieb Ian Smith:
> <snip>
> If it does (which I don't know), it will probably check the SPF record
> of the delivering mailserver, which was not *.jdlabs.fr as far as I can
> see from the mailheaders.
>
> Jutta Zalud
>

Follow-Ups:
- Uptick in spam
  - From: rsk at gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec)
- Uptick in spam
  - From: connorwilkins at ruggedinbox.com (Connor Wilkins)

References:
- Uptick in spam
  - From: anthony.kasza at gmail.com (anthony kasza)
- Uptick in spam
  - From: john-nanog at peachfamily.net (John Peach)
- AW: Uptick in spam
  - From: jj at anexia.at (Jürgen Jaritsch)
- AW: Uptick in spam
  - From: octalnanog at alvarezp.org (Octavio Alvarez)
- AW: Uptick in spam
  - From: ian.w.smith at gmail.com (Ian Smith)
- Uptick in spam
  - From: ju at netzwerklabor.at (Jutta Zalud)

Prev by Date: Uptick in spam
Next by Date: Uptick in spam
Previous by thread: Uptick in spam
Next by thread: Uptick in spam
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread