From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: From: David Presotto To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: SMTP+SPF (was: [9fans] Re: new release?) In-Reply-To: <1077756179.1991.85.camel@rea> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-dwluhisgquihzvuhlvjefcolzn" Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:48:15 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: f9cc0da2-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-dwluhisgquihzvuhlvjefcolzn Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What exactly is complicated about it? It's easier to implement than any spam filter I've ever seen. I do a dns query, get the ip addresses out of it and match them to the caller's IP address. If they match I accept the mail, if not I drop it on the floor. --upas-dwluhisgquihzvuhlvjefcolzn Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from plan9.cs.bell-labs.com ([135.104.9.2]) by plan9; Thu Feb 26 05:23:28 EST 2004 Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by plan9; Thu Feb 26 05:23:25 EST 2004 Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001) id BB74419ED9; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 05:23:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.4.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 614CA19C64; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 05:23:19 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001) id BF9EE19EA3; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 05:22:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from anvil.com (wonderwall.anvil.co.uk [194.193.52.253]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id C705819D2F for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 05:22:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by anvil.com (Postfix, from userid 27) id 76DF530E; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:21:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from anvil.co.uk (mother.anvil.co.uk [192.168.4.4]) by anvil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF402365 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:20:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (IDENT:root@rothko [192.168.4.66]) by anvil.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA00386 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:38:35 GMT Subject: Re: SMTP+SPF (was: [9fans] Re: new release?) From: Dave Lukes To: 9fans <9fans@cse.psu.edu> In-Reply-To: <3281.199.98.20.107.1077754455.squirrel@wish.cooper.edu> References: <5650c97bcaa9d357e77eb3396c1eb368@collyer.net> <3281.199.98.20.107.1077754455.squirrel@wish.cooper.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1077756179.1991.85.camel@rea> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:42:59 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on psuvax1.cse.psu.edu X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Level: > Does anyone here have an opinion (yes ;-) ) on SMTP+SPF? Yes: 1) it's complicated 2) no-one I trust has yet said "it probably works for the following reasons". Therefore, until this changes, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't work. Also, as an aside, the SMTP standards contain varioushave these vague admonitions > http://spf.pobox.com/ It *claims* to be a sufficient patch on SMTP to > ensure that the sender of an email is a real person from a responsible > ISP. > > --Joel --upas-dwluhisgquihzvuhlvjefcolzn--