Re: Massive SPAM Increase

On 17/10/06, gabriel rosenkoetter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 12:17:51PM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> > It appears that what you're missing is that this one "flaw" is not enough
> > to get mail rejected by policyd-weight.
>
> What you're missing is that the assumption that systems sending
> valid mail will always (or even will usually) be listed in DNS is
> fundamentally wrong and should never be used even as a weighted
> guess to indicate spam.

Well, they may be listed in SPF records, though I agree not in MX.

And by itself, I don't believe SPF provides a useful indication one
way or the other as to whether a message is spam or not.  Lots of
spammers set up SPF records these days.

cheers,
 Jamie
-- 
Jamie Riden, CISSP / [email protected] / [email protected]
NZ Honeynet project - http://www.nz-honeynet.org/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This List Sponsored by: Black Hat

Attend the Black Hat Briefings & Training USA, July 29-August 3 in Las Vegas. 
World renowned security experts reveal tomorrow's threats today. Free of 
vendor pitches, the Briefings are designed to be pragmatic regardless of your 
security environment. Featuring 36 hands-on training courses and 10 conference 
tracks, networking opportunities with over 2,500 delegates from 40+ nations. 

http://www.blackhat.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------