nanog mailing list archives
Re: Uptick in spam
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:22:31 -0400
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:08:00AM -0400, Ian Smith wrote:
But it's a bit of a stretch to say that [SPF] has zero value.
No, it's not a stretch at all. It's a statistical reality. And a single isolated case does not alter that. You're welcome to set up your own network of spamtraps and mailboxes, ingest a sizable corpus of messages, and analyze it. If you do so, and if you take care to ensure that the composition of that traffic is appropriate (that is, not skewed by network, domain, ASN, TLD, etc.), and you accumulate samples over a period of many years, you'll find the same thing. This wasn't always true, incidentally. In the early days of SPF, it did have some value, because -- by far -- the most prolific early adopters of SPF were spammers. ---rsk
Current thread:
- Re: AW: Uptick in spam, (continued)
- Re: AW: Uptick in spam Octavio Alvarez (Oct 26)
- Re: AW: Uptick in spam Ian Smith (Oct 27)
- Re: AW: Uptick in spam Rich Kulawiec (Oct 27)
- Re: AW: Uptick in spam Geoffrey Keating (Oct 27)
- Re: AW: Uptick in spam Peter Beckman (Oct 27)
- Re: AW: Uptick in spam Hunter Fuller (Oct 27)
- Re: AW: Uptick in spam John Levine (Oct 27)
- Re: AW: Uptick in spam Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Jutta Zalud (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Ian Smith (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Rich Kulawiec (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Ian Smith (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Colin Johnston (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam anthony kasza (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Rich Kulawiec (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Peter Beckman (Oct 27)
- Re: more FUSSPs, Uptick in spam John Levine (Oct 27)
- Re: more FUSSPs, Uptick in spam Ian Smith (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Connor Wilkins (Oct 27)
- Re: Uptick in spam Octavio Alvarez (Oct 28)
- Re: AW: Uptick in spam Octavio Alvarez (Oct 28)