spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [SPFTAG] - RE: [SPFTAG] - RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail) - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail)

2004-09-29 07:30:10

I think this whole discussion is for nothing.
Considering that rarely people put their address as pretty name you 
can allready prefilter emails as spam which have a valid 
email address 
as pretty name.
Maybe you can even consider to mark everything as SPAM 
which has an @ 
in the pretty name.

My company mandates that ALL users the pretty name shalt be 
their email address.

Most of our users comply.

fine - so display name = mime from. so no problem if you consider
a display name as invalid if it contains an @ but does not match
mime from.



Lots of other people do that to, perhaps not the majority, 
but a sufficient minority to prevent blocking on that logic 
to be reasonable.

Or you compare pretty name with addresss when pretty name 
is a valid 
email address.

That's a good idea, barring typos and ignoring whitespace, 
that should work.


It think this pretty name discussion should be placed 
somewhere in a 
SPAM Filter forum and not in a SenderID Forum.

As long as SenderID is claiming to fix Phishing, I believe 
you to be incorrect.

You will never find a way of verifying Display Names.
How do you know that I am really Stefan Engelbert and
not John Doe who is faking the Display Name to Stefan Engelbert?

So I repeat my opinion that its impossible to invent an
"Eierlegende Wollmilchsau". We should focus on SPF and/or SenderID/PRA.




Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment Great Gulf Homes 
/ Ashton Woods Homes terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085


Kind Regards
Stefan Engelbert

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com 
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of
Scott Kitterman
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 3:00 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [SPFTAG] - RE: [spf-discuss] No use of checking
RFC2822 headers - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail)

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com 
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of 
Michel Py
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:50 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] No use of checking RFC2822 headers


Carl Hutzler wrote:
The latter address is the email address which is
cdhutzler(_at_)aol(_dot_)com(_dot_) 
Carl Hutzler is the display name or pretty name. We do
not display
the pretty name in our AOL clients. Never have.

This is very good and we all thank you, but I'm afraid that the 
outlook of the Outlook situation (pun intended) is bleak.
The very
reason Outlook displays the pretty name is customer 
request, and 
delivering to the customers what they want (no matter it's
a good or
bad idea) is what made M$ successful.

I don't see a solution to it as of now, since millions
would tell you
that it's a feature they want not a bug.

Michel.


I don't know about Outlook Express (don't use it), but in Outlook 
2000 what happens is you see only the pretty name in the message 
list, but when you open the message, you see both.  Also, it will 
display Sender too, so your e-mail to the list is displayed as:

message list:

From
Michel Py

Preview pane:

From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com

Opened message:

owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com; on behalf of; Michel 
Py 
[michel(_at_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us]

In terms of the 2822 identities, I don't think that's to bad. 
 I don't know what newer versions do (won't be finding out either 
because of product activation).

Scott Kitterman



-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/ Archives at 
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 
in Atlanta 
features SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily 
deactivate your 
subscription, please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com



This mail was checked for malicious code and viruses by GFI 
MailSecurity. GFI MailSecurity provides email content checking, 
exploit detection, threats analysis and anti-virus for 
Exchange & SMTP 
servers. Viruses, Trojans, dangerous attachments and 
offensive content 
are removed automatically.
Key features include: multiple virus engines; email content and 
attachment checking; an exploit shield; an HTML threats engine; a 
Trojan & Executable Scanner; and more.

In addition to GFI MailSecurity, GFI also produces the GFI 
MailEssentials anti-spam software, the GFI FAXmaker fax 
server & GFI 
LANguard network security product ranges.
For more information on our products, please visit 
http://www.gfi.com. 
This disclaimer was sent by GFI MailEssentials for Exchange/SMTP.

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/ Archives at 
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta 
features SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com