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. |

| Subject: | Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} |
|---|---|
| Date: | Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:41:19 -0400 |
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:39:40PM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
For various reasons, which you can easily google, I don't think spf (at least in its present form) is a useful solution.
And for various reasons, which several parties have enumerated here, neither is using MX for this. SPF is at least intended to do the job you're misusing MX for, and it's far leass likely to give you a false positive. Why wouldn't you use SPF as a towards-ham weight? -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net
pgps8WcHPLQLH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
| Previous by Date: | Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6}, Dude VanWinkle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6}, Valdis . Kletnieks |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6}, Paul Schmehl |
| Next by Thread: | Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6}, Valdis . Kletnieks |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |