nanog mailing list archives
Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact?
From: Chris Owen <owenc () hubris net>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:38:54 -0600
On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
Because SenderID and SPF have no anti-spam value, and almost no anti-forgery value. Not that this stops a *lot* of people who've drunk the kool-aid from trying to use them anyway,
OK, I'll bite--How exactly do you go about forging email from my domain name if the host receiving it is checking SPF? Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 - A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Rich Kulawiec (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Chris Owen (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Chris Owen (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? John Levine (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Seth Mattinen (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Chris Owen (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? William Herrin (Dec 03)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Sean Donelan (Dec 03)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Chris Owen (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Suresh Ramasubramanian (Dec 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Andre Engel (Dec 03)