Security Incidents mailing list archives
Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6}
From: Brent Kearney <brent () kearneys ca>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:28:24 -0600
On Oct 9, 2006, at 15:29, Tim wrote:
Its purpose is to reject *all* mail from bogus MTAs - dialups,misconifigured servers, MTAs that aren't registered in the domains' DNS as a "legal" MX, MTAs that don't reverse properly, etc., etc. If the email isforged in any way, it will never make it to DATA.That's great, except it makes the internet more expensive for the little guy. If you're trying to run a non-spamming personal mailserver off ofa consumer DSL or cable line, you can get screwed by others' policieslike this because you may not have control over your PTR records or howyour ISP lists you as a non-MTA with other organizations.
Some university campuses maintain strict control over their reverse DNS entries, and so departments or on-campus organizations, research institutes, etc. that run their own mail servers will have non- matching forward and reverse DNS entries on their MX hosts. Blocking rules like this make life difficult for them as well.
Cases such as these raise the question, if the blocked mail never gets into your network, how would you know about the rate of false- positives?
Brent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This List Sponsored by: Black HatAttend the Black Hat Briefings & Training USA, July 29-August 3 in Las Vegas. World renowned security experts reveal tomorrow's threats today. Free of vendor pitches, the Briefings are designed to be pragmatic regardless of your security environment. Featuring 36 hands-on training courses and 10 conference tracks, networking opportunities with over 2,500 delegates from 40+ nations.
http://www.blackhat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- Massive SPAM Increase Alex (Oct 08)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase Kurt Seifried (Oct 08)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} Vini Engel (Oct 09)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} Kurt Seifried (Oct 09)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Vini Engel (Oct 09)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Paul Schmehl (Oct 09)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Tim (Oct 09)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Paul Schmehl (Oct 09)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Nathaniel Hall (Oct 09)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Tim (Oct 09)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Brent Kearney (Oct 09)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Paul Schmehl (Oct 09)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} Vini Engel (Oct 09)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase Kurt Seifried (Oct 08)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Graeme Fowler (Oct 09)
- Re: Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Luke Burton (Oct 09)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase Tillmann Werner (Oct 10)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 16)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Paul Schmehl (Oct 16)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 16)
- Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Paul Schmehl (Oct 16)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase gabriel rosenkoetter (Oct 16)
- Re: Massive SPAM Increase Jamie Riden (Oct 17)