nanog mailing list archives
Re: Uptick in spam
From: Connor Wilkins <connorwilkins () ruggedinbox com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:33:03 +0000
On 2015-10-27 13:08, Ian Smith wrote:
But that's not how SPF works. In SPF, the domain of the envelope headersender address is checked against that domain's sender policy. Sincejdlabs.fr has no policy specified, a strict SPF policy at the NANOG serverwould 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
Current thread:
- Re: Uptick in spam, (continued)
- Re: Uptick in spam Jutta Zalud (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Ian Smith (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Rich Kulawiec (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Ian Smith (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Colin Johnston (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam anthony kasza (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Rich Kulawiec (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Peter Beckman (Oct 27)
- Re: more FUSSPs, Uptick in spam John Levine (Oct 27)
- Re: more FUSSPs, Uptick in spam Ian Smith (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Connor Wilkins (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Octavio Alvarez (Oct 28)
- Re: AW: Uptick in spam Octavio Alvarez (Oct 28)
- Re: AW: Uptick in spam Jim Popovitch (Oct 28)
- Re: Uptick in spam Ian Smith (Oct 26)
- RE: Uptick in spam Steve Mikulasik (Oct 26)
- Re: Uptick in spam Andrew Kirch (Oct 26)
- Re: Uptick in spam Larry Sheldon (Oct 26)
- Re: Uptick in spam A . L . M . Buxey (Oct 27)