On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:54:59 EDT, Hector Santos said:
What gets me is how is the almighty paranoid, skeptic can believe the words
of just one news rag?
Did you stop to consider the possibility that I cited *one* URL as an example,
and didn't bother adding in another 5 paragraphs of "and in addition, my own
measurements showed this, and Joe AOL's data showed that, and somebody
else's data had these contradictory results yadda yadda yadda" when the
*important* thing was "Spammers will take advantage of things that will make
their mail more likely to be accepted".
Or are you seriously expecting us to believe the contrary? The same people who
send out large spoofed-source-address packets and use a zombied host elsewhere
to catch the ACK and other response packets, and sharing info between spamhaus
and zombie to get the TCP seq numbers right, just to make it *look* like the
mail is coming from the zombie but with the effective bandwidth of the big-pipe
spamhaus. It hasn't occurred to them to stick an SPF entry on their domain, in
the hopes it it will get some site to let their mail in? ;)
But since you asked: I checked the logs on our Listserv machine for yesterday.
Of 207 domains that actually posted something, 35 (or 16.9%) had SPF records.
Of the 938 domains that tried to spam us, 278 (or 29.6%) had SPF records.
Now please continue on what you were saying? :)
Description: PGP signature