nanog mailing list archives
Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact?
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:11:49 +0530
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Chris Owen <owenc () hubris net> wrote:
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?
Dont let me stop you playing russian roulette with your users' email.
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)