Re: @debian.org email forwarding and SPF
On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:13, Andrew Suffield <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:44:49AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 May 2004 01:23, Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > > This is partially correct, but not entirely. If you receive a mail
> > > > from a non-existent domain, you can very safely ignore the mail
> > > > altogether. So the first evasion scheme is not of any use.
> > >
> > > Tell that to the spammers. They certainly seem to think it's useful;
> > > they've been doing it for years.
> > As the number of mail servers that reject such mail increases spammers
> > will stop doing it.
> You're forgetting rule 1: spammers are stupid.
Even better! If spammers are so stupid then if we make debian.org use SPF
then we can significantly reduce the number of spams that end up annoying
> domain. The fact that the majority of users fall into this category is
> why SPF is a good idea - but it won't help stop spam, because the
> majority of *domains* do not.
Nothing will entirely stop spam. SPF is one of many measures to decrease the
amount of spam and make spamming more difficult (and less cost-effective for
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page