Ethical Hacking

Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package.
Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute

Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors.




Network Security Incidents
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6}

Subject: Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6}
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:04:19 -0400
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:29:56 EDT, you said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "split inbound and outbound", but any 
outbound MX host *should* be listed in DNS.

Again.. what is this "outbound MX" stuff?  Can you point at *any* RFC
that defines it?

                                              You only list one - 
smtp.vt.edu.

Exactly, because that's the only place that you *should* try to send mail
to if you expect it to get to an @vt.edu address.  If we listed our main
outbound server, and the load-balanced inbound farm was down for some reason,
you'd be trying to send mail to our outbound server, which won't work because
it's an *outbound* server.

             192.82.162.213 is reversible, so it would get points for 
being honest about its IP/hostname, but it would lose points for not being 
listed in DNS as an MX.

You're missing the point, very badly.

The *vast majority* of larger sites do this, and do not list their outbound
servers in their MX list.  See AOL, MSN, Yahoo, GMail, and pretty much everybody
else who's running enough mail to need a seperate outbound server.

Then go re-read RFC974, which discusses the use of DNS in mail routing.
Specifically, this section:

What the Domain Servers Know

   The domain servers store information as a series of resource records
   (RRs), each of which contains a particular piece of information about
   a given domain name (which is usually, but not always, a host).  The
   simplest way to think of a RR is as a typed pair of datum, a domain
   name matched with relevant data, and stored with some additional type
   information to help systems determine when the RR is relevant.  For
   the purposes of message routing, the system stores RRs known as MX
   RRs. Each MX matches a domain name with two pieces of data, a
   preference value (an unsigned 16-bit integer), and the name of a
   host.  The preference number is used to indicate in what order the
   mailer should attempt deliver to the MX hosts, with the lowest
   numbered MX being the one to try first.  Multiple MXs with the same
   preference are permitted and have the same priority.

OK. Got that? An MX is *A HOST YOU SEND MAIL TO*. It's *NOT* a host that
sends *you* mail.  If sites were *expected* to list hosts that *send* mail
in their MX list, why would we need any of the SPF variants?  You wouldn't -
the whole reason for SPF to exist is to tag *OUTBOUND* servers because the
outbound list is different from the inbound list.

So the end result is that you're asking the DNS a meaningless question, and
getting back an answer that will probably apply to the majority of *legitimate*
mail, and adding that in.  Why don't you just save the DNS lookup and just
add 0.75 to the score for *all* mail? ;)

Attachment: pgpM76jRb1FeL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>