spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Testing SPF/SRS

2005-02-22 12:33:39
At 01:00 AM 2/22/2005 -0500, Stuart Gathman wrote:
[snip]
The only thing functionally different from pobox.com is that we actually
check SPF.  Pobox could easily check SPF also.  Their problem is not
a technical one, but a (IMHO bad) policy decision.

BTW, you should have gotten an email sent to dmq(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com, containing
the telnet session attempting to send forged email.

Yes, I got the email, and I posted the session to the discussion in SpamCop Forum. Looks like everything is working as it should.

I also sent a legit email from gain.com to 'dmq at bmsi.com'. Here is the top header on the received mail:

Return-Path: <SRS1=UPSe=bmsi.com==6Vba5=RE=gain.com=dmq at bounce2.pobox.com>

Notice I used two forwarders: bmsi.com, then pobox.com

Looks like SRS works if it is set up correctly. The problem is social engineering. The warring camps are not talking to each other. This delay is costing the internet community about $2 billion per month.

-- Dave



*************************************************************     *
* David MacQuigg, PhD              * email:  dmq(_at_)gain(_dot_)com      *  *
* IC Design Engineer               * phone:  USA 520-721-4583  *  *  *
* Analog Design Methodologies                                  *  *  *
*                                  * 9320 East Mikelyn Lane     * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C.             * Tucson, Arizona 85710        *
*************************************************************     *

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper!  http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>