1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Daniel Iliev wrote: |
5 |
> Unfortunately many times one cannot control the reverse records, |
6 |
> because the IP address pool belongs to the ISP. Nevertheless the SMTP |
7 |
> server logs the IP address which the message came from. It doesn't |
8 |
> matter if the message would be bounced or accepted because of the |
9 |
> (in)correct reverse resolving. Additionally there's the SPF [1] and I |
10 |
> believe the email system at gentoo.org uses it. If that's so and my |
11 |
> poor abused address :) was at a domain with SPF record imposing "fail" |
12 |
> policy, that message shouldn't be accepted at all. At best you'd get |
13 |
> something like: |
14 |
> |
15 |
> "Domain of valid-user@×××××××.com does not designate 192.0.2.25 |
16 |
> as permitted sender." |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Anyways the right thing to do is to ban the IP address which the |
19 |
> offencive message came from, not the email address. So, signatures |
20 |
> don't come to play here. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> [1] http://www.openspf.org/ |
23 |
|
24 |
But you see it isn't that difficulty to abuse a email address. |
25 |
That what happened to your address and what P. S. Ziegler described |
26 |
was what I meant with "relatively easy". ;-) |
27 |
|
28 |
Have fun, |
29 |
W. Canis :-) |
30 |
|
31 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
32 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
33 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
34 |
|
35 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkhAIscACgkQKT9zBKF0twXUNACfdOnkosO99d8JqV0+JsYynrhP |
36 |
0hkAoJgZzmfQAMcTpg8hehBhbZ/frb4M |
37 |
=XD5e |
38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
39 |
-- |
40 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |