spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re[2]: [spf-discuss] Bounce-Spam and SPF-Ignorant ISPs - it is time to retaliate?

2005-11-29 07:35:14
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, paddy wrote:

Surely they are potentially useful, and if they are broken we should fix
them and that is one of the results that schemes like SPF offer?
Or do you believe that the problem is unfixable?

Most of the problem is implementation.  For instance, the first rule
of a DSN (null sender) is never ever ever reply or bounce a DSN.

The second rule is, never send a reply when a delivery status is intended.
A real DSN can be filtered via MFROM signing even if the bouncer doesn't
check SPF.

But nearly all the spam that makes it through my filters consists
of replies (that should have been DSNs) to a DSN.

Shouldn't we distinguish between good bounces and bad bounces, 
and explain how to get utility and how to avoid causing nuisance?

Perhaps if we can sort the words out, 
we can get them added to the Postmaster's Oath ;)

And the virus filter writers oath.  They are the biggest culprits.
I really don't see what their problem is.  The programmers scratch
their heads to puzzle out an MFROM for their virus notifications.  If they
would just leave the MFROM empty, it would save them and us a lot of trouble.

-- 
              Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
    Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
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>