Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6}

["Dude VanWinkle" <dudevanwinkle () gmail com>]

On 10/14/06, Paul Schmehl <pauls () utdallas edu> wrote:
> --On October 14, 2006 1:44:04 AM -0400 Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:

> > Tell you what.  Explain what an *OUTBOUND* MX is, and I'll see what I
> > can do.

> It appears that what you're missing is that this one "flaw" is not enough
> to get mail rejected by policyd-weight.

I dont intend to speak from another, but I think what Valdis is trying
to point out is that whether or not the lack of an "outbound MX
record" is detrimental to email delivery is not important.

Rather, the fact a rule was included that shows a deep
misunderstanding of SMTP and how it relates to DNS. This can only
negatively affect the false positive/negative ratio, and might be an
indication that other more serious flaws may be present in their
implementation.

-JP<I dont presume to presume>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This List Sponsored by: Black Hat

Attend 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------