spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?

2005-05-16 19:04:00
...... Original Message .......
On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:39:19 +0200 Julian Mehnle <bulk(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> 
wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
We (and our customers) have been bombarded by a boatload of German spam.
One characteristic of this spam is that the (forged) MAIL FROM is always
a domain with an SPF record that returns NEUTRAL for the zombies IP. It
is as if the zombie program screens potential forged MAIL FROMs to
ensure that they have an SPF record and won't get a FAIL.

Obviously this isn't true.  I keep getting lots of misdirected bounces 
from 
idiots who don't bother checking this German propaganda spam against my 
SPF records, which only give "Pass" or "Fail" results.

But it's an interesting theory, as this may very well become a reality 
with 
another virm/spam run soon.

I already reject NEUTRAL for commonly forged domains (e.g. aol.com), but
this new attack may lead to rejecting NEUTRAL results across the board.

Domains whose policy gives "Neutral" results (like those without any 
policy 
at all) don't care enough about being abused.  IOW, they are showing their 
consent to be forged.  In the grand scheme of things, that probably 
shouldn't be reason enough to block them.

I think this ignores the many valid reasons for this:

1.  Match mechanism for a shared-MTA that doesn't prevent cross-customer 
forgery.

2.  Domain is often forwarded via non-SRS forwarders to MTAs that don't 
whitelist the forwarders.

3.  Domain is often used to send from web services either not in 
trusted-forwarder.org or to MTAs that don't whitelist the services.

4.....

snip.

Scott K