Re: Opposition to RFC 7208 - SPF.

From	Spam Guy <"Spam"@Guy. com>
Newsgroups	comp.mail.misc, comp.std.misc
Subject	Re: Opposition to RFC 7208 - SPF.
Date	2014-06-16 15:23 -0400
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<lnng33$m2i$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<ln2inr$kr2$1@snarked.org> <lnhiuh$o0k$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lnjftj$mt8$1@snarked.org>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

"D. Stussy" wrote:

> will the SMTP software that my server has been running for the
> past 13 years continue to be able to send and receive mail to
> external hosts on port 25?
> 
> Yes, and if you ignore RFC 7208, you'll get all the forged spam
> you deserve as well.

Forged or not, my server has almost 10,000 entries in it's IP-based
SMTP-blocking list, with 90% of those entries being /16 ("B class")
entries, and add to that I have about 2-dozen /8 "A-class" entries.

So I block a good chunk of IPv4 IP space as it is, and I see hundreds of
SMTP-Connect-Reject entries in the daily log files.

There is no better anti-spam method then your own heavy-handed IP
blocking list.

I should at some point see if trojanized spam relays are still baffled
when there is no MX entry for their target recipients like they were a
few years ago.

Back to comp.std.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Opposition to RFC 7208 - SPF. "D. Stussy" <spam+newsgroups@bde-arc.ampr.org> - 2014-06-08 13:57 -0700
  Re: Opposition to RFC 7208 - SPF. Spam Guy <"Spam"@ Guy. com> - 2014-06-14 09:35 -0400
    Re: Opposition to RFC 7208 - SPF. "D. Stussy" <spam+newsgroups@bde-arc.ampr.org> - 2014-06-14 23:53 -0700
      Re: Opposition to RFC 7208 - SPF. Spam Guy <"Spam"@Guy. com> - 2014-06-16 15:23 -0400
      Re: Opposition to RFC 7208 - SPF. deksd <test@test.test> - 2018-04-03 18:58 +0000

csiph-web