North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Spammers Skirt IP Authentication Attempts

  • From: Paul Vixie
  • Date: Tue Sep 07 15:43:29 2004

[email protected] (Paul Jakma) writes:

> SPF is worthless.

i don't agree.  i think it's overengineered and that a simpler solution like
the one at <http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/mailfrom.txt> should have been deployed
years ago, but i don't think SPF, or things like SPF, are at all worthless.

every time someone forges one of my domains or e-mail addresses as a spam
source, i get all kinds of bot-mail telling me that what the spammer tried
to do didn't work.  quite a lot of challenge/response nonsense.  quite a few
majordomo/etc listbot error messages.  a whole pile of [email protected] errors.

the right way to resolve this would be to make all errors synchronous to the
smtp session where they occur.  but this would prevent secondary-mx, or any
kind of asynchronous mail forwarding.  so, mail that requires a robotic reply
has to cause a new envelope to hold this reply, and if the source was forged,
then some innocent bystander is going to get that reply.

if all mailbots learned to speak something like SPF, and my domains all
advertise the nec'y metadata to enable something like SPF, then i would find
it far easier to filter the remaining drivel in my inbox, which would just
be spam and e-mail (listed in order by volume) -- no more mailbot responses
to messages i never sent.

the economic benefit that will actually cause something like SPF to come into
wide use is different yet again -- it's not to make it easier to filter the
remainder, and it's not to stop spam.  it's to protect trademarks owned by
large e-mail providers ("@hotmail.com" being one, "@yahoo.com" being another)
from dilution.  everything that happens on the internet these days happens
for economics-related reasons.  i'm glad that companies bigger and richer
than i am find it in their own selfish best interests to push something like
SPF -- that means it'll happen.  that my own reasons differ from theirs is
immaterial.  that they have to mismarket it as a spamstopper to get corporate
and investor support for it is also immaterial.  the fact is, it's coming --
and it's useful, just not for the advertised reasons, or a universal reason.
-- 
Paul Vixie