On Wed, April 2, 2008 21:34, mouss wrote:
Anyone knows if backscatterer.org list is safe? If so, one can reject
mail if the envelope sender is empty and the client is listed there.
http://rfc-ignorant.org/policy-dsn.php
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ?
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Justin Mason wrote:
John Hardin writes:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, William Terry wrote:
Is there anything I can do to mitigate this?
Do you publish SPF records?
Logically this should have an effect, but in real-world terms, it
doesn't. So don't worry about it.
On
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Justin Mason wrote:
John Hardin writes:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, William Terry wrote:
Is there anything I can do to mitigate this?
Do you publish SPF records?
Logically this should have an effect, but in
Yes, we have also seen it on many of our clients domains.
Vbounce helps.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
|SECNAP Network Security
Winner 2008 Network Products Guide Hot Companies
FreeBSD SpamAssassin Ports maintainer
Charter member, ICSA labs anti-spam consortium
Yes, we have also seen it on many of our clients domains.
On 03.04.08 14:09, Mark Martinec wrote:
Does anyone have operational experience with a scheme of labeling
envelope sender addresses to recognize legitimate bounces to own mail,
such as the BATV scheme (Bounce Address Tag Validation):
Yes, we have also seen it on many of our clients domains.
Same here.
Does anyone have operational experience with a scheme of labeling
envelope sender addresses to recognize legitimate bounces to own mail,
such as the BATV scheme (Bounce Address Tag Validation):
http://mipassoc.org/batv/
On 03.04.08 07:42, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Yes, we have also seen it on many of our clients domains.
Vbounce helps.
It seems that VBounce doesn't catch quite much of bounces. I was checking
bounces in our company's mailbox and bigger part of them didn't hit...
I hope that will get better.
I
Mark Martinec writes:
Yes, we have also seen it on many of our clients domains.
Same here.
Does anyone have operational experience with a scheme of labeling
envelope sender addresses to recognize legitimate bounces to own mail,
such as the BATV scheme (Bounce Address Tag Validation):
Hi Mark,
At 05:09 03-04-2008, Mark Martinec wrote:
Does anyone have operational experience with a scheme of labeling
envelope sender addresses to recognize legitimate bounces to own mail,
such as the BATV scheme (Bounce Address Tag Validation):
http://mipassoc.org/batv/
+0200
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Dramatic increase in bounce messages to forged addresses
Yes, we have also seen it on many of our clients domains.
Same here.
Does anyone have operational experience with a scheme of labeling
envelope sender addresses to recognize
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Michael Scheidell wrote:
I say death penalty to spammers.
That's going to be the only truly effective solution.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
key: 0xB8732E79
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Wed, April 2, 2008 02:06, William Terry wrote:
I mostly lurk here, gleaning bits of wisdom from those far more
knowledgeable than me, however...
i have no clue either :-)
I am getting a dramatic increase in bounce messages with my domain
forged sent to
John Hardin writes:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, William Terry wrote:
Is there anything I can do to mitigate this?
Do you publish SPF records?
Logically this should have an effect, but in real-world terms, it doesn't.
So don't worry about it.
Instead, try enabling the vbounce ruleset...
--j.
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 10:42 +0200, mouss wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Wed, April 2, 2008 02:06, William Terry wrote:
I mostly lurk here, gleaning bits of wisdom from those far more
knowledgeable than me, however...
i have no clue either :-)
I am getting a
i see other types of backscatter that could be solved by using spf
only if spammers check spf before forging addresses, which I doubt...
I can say that since I started publishing SPF records at $DAYJOB we've seen
a gigantic reduction in backscatter. I think many spammers do try to avoid
using
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Justin Mason wrote:
John Hardin writes:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, William Terry wrote:
Is there anything I can do to mitigate this?
Do you publish SPF records?
Logically this should have an effect, but in real-world terms, it
doesn't. So don't worry about it.
Sure it
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 10:08, Justin Mason wrote:
John Hardin writes:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, William Terry wrote:
Is there anything I can do to mitigate this?
Do you publish SPF records?
Logically this should have an effect, but in real-world terms, it doesn't.
So don't worry about
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 10:08, Justin Mason wrote:
John Hardin writes:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, William Terry wrote:
Is there anything I can do to mitigate this?
Do you publish SPF records?
Logically this should have an effect, but in
On Apr 2, 2008, at 12:34 PM, mouss wrote:
no tuning on your side will help solving problems at the other
side. For example, I found that hotmail cache the value
Yes, they cache the results of that DNS query for exactly how long
you tell them to. If you want the SPF record cached less,
Jo Rhett wrote:
On Apr 2, 2008, at 12:34 PM, mouss wrote:
no tuning on your side will help solving problems at the other side.
For example, I found that hotmail cache the value
Yes, they cache the results of that DNS query for exactly how long you
tell them to.
This is not my observation.
I mostly lurk here, gleaning bits of wisdom from those far more
knowledgeable than me, however...
I am getting a dramatic increase in bounce messages with my domain
forged sent to me. At least some of the messages still retain the
headers so I can tell that we did not originate the message.
Yup. Big rise over the past two weeks.
Kurt
-Original Message-
From: William Terry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 17:07
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Dramatic increase in bounce messages to forged addresses
I mostly lurk here, gleaning bits
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, William Terry wrote:
Is there anything I can do to mitigate this?
Do you publish SPF records?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411
increase in bounce messages to forged addresses
I mostly lurk here, gleaning bits of wisdom from those far more
knowledgeable than me, however...
I am getting a dramatic increase in bounce messages with my domain
forged sent to me. At least some of the messages still retain the
headers so I
On Wed, April 2, 2008 02:06, William Terry wrote:
I mostly lurk here, gleaning bits of wisdom from those far more
knowledgeable than me, however...
i have no clue either :-)
I am getting a dramatic increase in bounce messages with my domain
forged sent to me. At least some of the messages
John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, William Terry wrote:
Is there anything I can do to mitigate this?
Do you publish SPF records?
We haven't as of yet. I have been looking at it though since this last
burst of backscatter. Any idea how widely SPF record checking has been
adopted out
26 matches
Mail list logo
