Re: Trouble with Sender Authentication
Julian Mehnle <[email protected]> Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:47:36 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mxcomp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--nextPart2154089.dXXMN4boX6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Dean Anderson wrote: > On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Greg Hewgill wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 02:34:29PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote: > > > Most of this isn't commercial, either. Commercial bulk email is no > > > longer a problem. > > > > Is that right? Virtually all the spam I see relates to pharmacy, > > stock, mortgage, pirated software, or are email worms. The whole idea > > of each of those are to make money for somebody. I don't even know > > what "non-commercial spam" would look like today. > > Tried purchasing anything? I have. I opened a bank account just for a > special credit card. But it was never charged. If money changed hands, > I figured it would be easy to find them. No money ever changed hands, > even though, ostensibly, the spam _looks_ commercial. But wait, if no > money changes hands, it isn't commercial, no matter what it _looks_ > like. And this specific experiment of yours is representative exactly _how_? If money never changes hands, how come the SPF support team gets support=20 requests like the following? | Topic: Support request | Name: M* P* |=20 | My e-mail at Mp*@*.net is not compatible somehow with you recieving | messages. Please use my alternate e-mail address at m*p*@yahoo.com. My= =20 | question is-where are the meds I ordered? Payment has been deducted from | my bank account, but I have recieved no meds. Thankyou for your | help..................MP* (Yes, I had a good laugh when reading that.) Oh, right, next you're going to claim that this was a legitimate buying=20 transaction with a non-spammer, not some poor bastard falling for a=20 spamming fraudster (before then also tripping over an SPF policy=20 violation). Sorry for having barged in once more, but I found your argument too funny=20 not to comment on it... --nextPart2154089.dXXMN4boX6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBFU8wtwL7PKlBZWjsRAs7sAKC8oGRsx8T+t0U0jDdsVK7ZwIqv+QCg6EQG ca0+UZ95OBS/5UUK5v8Nt+k= =YevT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2154089.dXXMN4boX6--