Security Incidents mailing list archives
Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6}
From: Paul Schmehl <pauls () utdallas edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:38:08 -0500
--On Monday, October 16, 2006 10:04:30 -0700 benfell () raven cybernude org wrote:
Wrong. Completely wrong. Any UNIX-like box with qmail can be configured to send mail out. My laptop, for example. But my domains only receive mail at the servers designated as MX hosts in DNS. Your idea that an outbound mail host should be listed in DNS indicates a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of an MX record. These records indicate to other MTAs where they should deliver mail *to*, not where they should accept mail from.
{{{sigh}}} It sure would be nice if you guys would READ before jumping all over this. Of course the MX record indicates where you send mail *to*. But historically thoses hosts were also the ones that accepted mail. And in fact, *many* domains still handle it that way. Yes, some do not, including ours, but that's beside the point.
Furthermore, policyd-*****WEIGHT***** (get it?????) assigns *weights* to various "flaws" (much like spamassassin does to content) and it takes a lot more than one flaw to reject the mail.
If you think that's wrong now, take it up with the author of policyd-weight, not me. And as I have stated **repeatedly**, if you don't believe me, send a test message to geek () stovebolt com and see if it gets through. To my knowledge, not one person who has done that has had their mail rejected.
Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu) Adjunct Information Security Officer The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6}, (continued)
- Re: Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Luke Burton (Oct 09)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase Tillmann Werner (Oct 10)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 16)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Paul Schmehl (Oct 16)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 16)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Paul Schmehl (Oct 16)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase gabriel rosenkoetter (Oct 16)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase Jamie Riden (Oct 17)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Dude VanWinkle (Oct 17)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} benfell (Oct 16)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Paul Schmehl (Oct 16)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} gabriel rosenkoetter (Oct 17)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 16)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Paul Schmehl (Oct 16)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} gabriel rosenkoetter (Oct 17)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 17)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Paul Schmehl (Oct 17)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} benfell (Oct 16)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Dude VanWinkle (Oct 17)
- RE: Massive SPAM Increase Vince Valenti (Oct 17)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Jamie Riden (Oct 17)