Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6}
Paul Schmehl <[email protected]> Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:33:14 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.security.incidents |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--On Monday, October 09, 2006 17:29:23 -0400 Tim <[email protected]> wrote: >> Its purpose is to reject *all* mail from bogus MTAs - dialups, >> misconifigured servers, MTAs that aren't registered in the domains' DNS >> as a "legal" MX, MTAs that don't reverse properly, etc., etc. If the >> email is forged in any way, it will never make it to DATA. > > That's great, except it makes the internet more expensive for the little > guy. If you're trying to run a non-spamming personal mailserver off of > a consumer DSL or cable line, you can get screwed by others' policies > like this because you may not have control over your PTR records or how > your ISP lists you as a non-MTA with other organizations. > > Sure, argue that the little guy should just shell out for a better line, > but if he could, he wouldn't be the little guy. > It wouldn't hurt to actually read how it works before criticizing it. Policyd-weight (the name implies what it does) provides a weighted score to each "bad" thing an MTA does. The *cumulative* score is what matters. It also *subtracts* points for good things that an MTA does. So, the situation you describe should not be a problem. If you want to test that, send a test message to [email protected], and see if it gets rejected. If it does, look at the headers to see what it did. Paul Schmehl ([email protected]) Adjunct Information Security Officer The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
(unnamed)
(application/pkcs7-signature, 4 KB) - not displayed