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

Uptick in spam

Subject: Uptick in spam
From: connorwilkins at ruggedinbox.com (Connor Wilkins)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:33:03 +0000
In-reply-to: <CALeqL2fxYbiUk294VqGPD3fiYQkyELF83KVdcd-2RM_QXEEFbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEZw2byBWRdAk2WWqGAKVs5On6rFQO7k83L-F1AwY6q1kMrgmQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CALeqL2exq_iLrVQWztJFD1EuiG+jdNgYpQjS2p8ZirH8UagZ_w@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CALeqL2fxYbiUk294VqGPD3fiYQkyELF83KVdcd-2RM_QXEEFbg@mail.gmail.com>

On 2015-10-27 13:08, Ian Smith wrote:
> 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.

No sane system rejects email based on the lack of a SPF policy.

If the domain had a policy ending in "-all" and the spam wasn't coming 
from a source allowed by the policy then it should be marked as failing, 
held for moderator review, or rejected.

-- 
?Simply stated, we have a new formula for Coke.? --- Roberto C. 
Goizueta, Company Chairman, Coca-Cola

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)
- Uptick in spam
  - From: ian.w.smith at gmail.com (Ian Smith)

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