2010/3/23 - <[email protected]>:
>> > Here's your problem. You haven't checked the sender
>> against SPF....
>>
>> True unless sender is a spamtrap of some dnsbl list - than you're
>> listed and problem is yours ;)
>
> All proper spamtrap mailboxes should have SPF records indicating that they
> don't send mail at all ("v=spf1 -all" if the entire domain is a trap), or
> have a proper record restricting to authorized senders. In the latter
> category, a true spamtrap mailbox will NEVER be used as a sender from an
> authorized place, so it should always fail SPF.
>
> An UNPROTECTED (by SPF or alternative method; e.g. Domainkeys "always
> signed") spamtrap mailbox is not a valid construct, but misbehavior as
> damaging as spam itself. A spammer may use it as a sending source where the
> recipient has no way to determine it's not valid (since it's unprotected),
> and thus any reply (whether manual or automatic) is APPROPRIATE traffic, thus
> leading to false positive listings.
>
> The admin. of the backscatterer and UCEprotect lists, is completely CLUELESS
> as to this requirement. Every mailbox and domain owner, and especially DNSBL
> operators, have a responsibility to prevent their mailbox resources from
> being used as forged sources. Failure to prevent this pollutes their
> blacklists.
Yeah, don't tell me about it. My backup MX I'm writing about in this
thread is listed in both of them.
That is really sad that their are so popular and making money for
delisting (UCEprotect)...
I fully agree with what you said, but life is brutal and full od spamtraps ;-)
Cheers,
--
Jakub Wasielewski
_______________________________________________
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected]
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
