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 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

Attachment: pgps8WcHPLQLH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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