, February 18, 2007 9:58 AM
To: swinog@swinog.ch
Subject: Re: [swinog] to SPF or not to SPF
So I would suggest offering SMTP (AUTH) support on ports 25 and 26, just
to
be sure.
No no no.
RFC: 2476:
| 3. Message Submission
| 3.1. Submission Identification
|
| Port 587 is reserved for email message
If the provider on which one is guesting has a policy to block
outbound access from their network to all ports used for sending of
mail, so that they can force one through their SMTP server for sake
of control, micromanagement, or whatever, then (assuming they know
about it), would they not
would they not then block official port 587 as well as port 25?
That was the position I heard the 'customer service rep' take the last
time I tried to solve such a problem through appeal to bureaucratic
sensibility.
There isn't really a (valid) reason to block port 587:
Blocking outgoing
So I would suggest offering SMTP (AUTH) support on ports 25 and 26, just to
be sure.
No no no.
RFC: 2476:
| 3. Message Submission
| 3.1. Submission Identification
|
| Port 587 is reserved for email message submission as specified in
| this document. Messages received on this port are
in any meaningful way.
SMTP-After-Pop is pointless -- it is broken in Outlook up to 2003.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Bernard Dugas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:47 AM
To: swinog@swinog.ch
Subject: Re: [swinog] to SPF or not to SPF
And in complement
Well to use other SMTP relay than the one from the used ISP is not allways
possible, and should be prevented anyway.
nearly 100% of the spam is caused by direct senders, very seldom they use the
ISP's Relay.
so lets close that big spamfriendly hole.
My opinion of corse
-- Original
All mailing list forward mail with the original sender in the
enveloppe
Not true: Mails from the swinog-mailinglist reach my mailserver with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] as sender envelope address
and if you forward your mail on one server to another one
with e.g. a simple .forward rule it will also
Schmid wrote:
Well to use other SMTP relay than the one from the used ISP is not allways possible, and should be prevented anyway.
Why ? there is no risk if encryotion/authentication is used.
nearly 100% of the spam is caused by direct senders, very seldom they use the ISP's Relay.
so lets
-- Original Message --
From: Bernard Dugas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:22:25 +0100
Schmid wrote:
Well to use other SMTP relay than the one from the used ISP is not allways
possible, and should be prevented anyway.
Why ? there is no
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 09:52:12AM +0100, Jean-Pierre Schwickerath wrote:
All mailing list forward mail with the original sender in the
enveloppe
Not true: Mails from the swinog-mailinglist reach my mailserver with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] as sender envelope address
Jup, my bad that's true
Hi Swinoger,
Thanks for the discussion so far. My original intend to do a post asking
about SPF was to get a general feeling about what the community thinks. It
seems to me, that there is still a lot of mistrust considering the
efficency around. To be honest I was really surprised reading
]
Gesendet von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
16.02.2007 14:37
Bitte antworten an
swinog@swinog.ch; Bitte antworten an
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
An
swinog@swinog.ch
Kopie
Thema
Re: [swinog] to SPF or not to SPF
Thanks god you are not entitled as a Fuerst that could be missleading to
an pepperspray selling spamer
--- Bernard Dugas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, but at least, I know that no spamming is coming from my users and
my outgoing smtp : small satisfaction for a small network :-)
what we did for a cable access network, is http://policyd.sourceforge.net/
configured for rate control. If a sender
Am 14.02.2007 um 21:59 schrieb Viktor Steinmann:
Nowadays, every sicko can buy a .com domain for 9$ or even less.
Spammers buy domains, put correct SPF records in their zonefiles
and throw the domain away afterwards... (just like you did with
hotmail accounts a few years back :-))
So
Hi,
1. Serious design flaws (such as the forwarding problem).
SPF is there to prevent mail with your sender envelope address to be
relayed/forwarded by mailservers that are not meant to use your
address. When you forward a mail in your MUA, you don't use the
original sender in the From:
Jean-Pierre Schwickerath wrote:
If you consider SPF to be the solution against all kinds of SPAMs then
you will indeed be disapointed. SPF is meant to prevent the abuse of
your domain as mail envelope from address.
There are still worms out there that use harvested e-mail addresses as
sender.
Hi,
Jean-Pierre Schwickerath wrote:
If you consider SPF to be the solution against all kinds of SPAMs then
you will indeed be disapointed. SPF is meant to prevent the abuse of
your domain as mail envelope from address.
There are still worms out there that use harvested e-mail addresses as
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 08:31:15AM +0100, Jean-Pierre Schwickerath wrote:
Hi,
1. Serious design flaws (such as the forwarding problem).
SPF is there to prevent mail with your sender envelope address to be
relayed/forwarded by mailservers that are not meant to use your
address. When you
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:35:03PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Maillist,
SPF is starting to become a topic at our company again - ^^ - and I'm
now interested:
- who does not use SPF
- who implemented SPF DNS entries
- who uses SPF for matching
- who fully uses SPF ^^ lolz
I'm
we're not using spf at all.
i think there's every year a new discussion about it. check out the
archive ;-)
-steven
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 3:35 PM
To: swinog@swinog.ch
Hello Bernard
That would be a nice solution, but explain that to a user...
cheers
rog
Bernard Dugas schrieb:
Bonjour,
Norbert Bollow wrote:
Use DomainKeys instead of SPF. DomainKeys serves the same purpose,
but doesn't share the fundamental brokenness of SPF.
And why not using the
And why not using the existing authentication protocol on outgoing smtp
server ? So the sender can use the smtp server of the provider of its
email address from any network and SPF can work without any problem.
How would this solve the forwarding problem?
And how are you going to teach
Nowadays, every sicko can buy a .com domain for 9$ or even less.
Spammers buy domains, put correct SPF records in their zonefiles and
throw the domain away afterwards... (just like you did with hotmail
accounts a few years back :-))
So IMHO DNS based spam fighting doesn't work. At least not
Roger Buchwalder wrote:
That would be a nice solution, but explain that to a user...
We did it, and that was fine as they are only 2 boxes to click on
outlook/outlookexpress, and still easy enough on mozilla/thunderbird
with more mature users :-)
All are very happy as they don't have to
Viktor Steinmann wrote:
Nowadays, every sicko can buy a .com domain for 9$ or even less.
Spammers buy domains, put correct SPF records in their zonefiles and
throw the domain away afterwards... (just like you did with hotmail
accounts a few years back :-))
Sure, but at least, I know that no
On Wednesday 14. February 2007 22:15, Bernard Dugas wrote:
Adrian Ulrich wrote:
And why not using the existing authentication protocol on
outgoing smtp server ? So the sender can use the smtp
server of the provider of its email address from any
network and SPF can work without any problem.
26 matches
Mail list logo
