OT: Question
Scott Silva
ssilva at sgvwater.com
Fri Apr 3 00:32:34 IST 2009
on 4-2-2009 3:37 PM Rick Cooper spake the following:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
>> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Ken A
>> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 4:42 PM
>> To: MailScanner discussion
>> Subject: Re: OT: Question
>>
>> Rick Cooper wrote:
>>> Just a query regarding bounces: How many of you actually bounce mail
>>> anymore? I ask this question because I noted a huge number
>> of rejects on one
>>> of my servers that appear to be valid bounce attempts to an
>> address of
>>> info at mydomain.com for the last week or so. I have an ACL
>> that looks at the
>>> local part of recipients and if that local part is being
>> used it denies the
>>> message (even null sender) with a message stating there is
>> no such user and
>>> it's an address currently being joe-jobbed. I see the same
>> ips repeatedly
>>> attempting a bounce for days.
>> I've got one: eqnjahdhx at domain.tld. We host the domain, but of course
>> they don't send the spam. They aren't even aware of it. We are the
>> joe-jobbed victim. We don't accept the bounces, but they are
>> annoying, and it's been going on for well over a year. I tightened up
>> the SPF record, but I don't think that helped much. People
>> who accept,
>> then bounce mail will eventually learn, or be buried, I
>> think. The 550
>> error on this one now says "Please dont bounce forged spam".
>> That hasn't
>> helped either. It just takes time.
>>
>> Ken
>
> [...]
>
> That is the frustration that I feel. Pick a list having something to do with
> mail, SA, Exim, pretty much any and you will hear people stating what a
> waste of time SPF is but when it comes to something like this I would much
> prefer a DNS txt check over repeatedly trying to send a bounce. And they
> would be miles ahead because they would have never wasted time taking the
> mail.
>
> I guess nothing works if you don't use it.
>
SPF is only a poor method of anti-spam tool. As a tool to control bounces, it
seems to be much better. Another problem with it is many of the server records
are set to softfail (~),pass (+), or neutral (?), instead of fail(-) . Even
the spf wizard that many people used seems to either set softfail or neutral,
and unless you dig in the docs, you wouldn't know any better.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 258 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20090402/5d9310d3/signature.bin
More information about the MailScanner
mailing list