North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: verizon.net and other email grief

  • From: Michael Loftis
  • Date: Fri Dec 10 15:41:52 2004



--On Friday, December 10, 2004 12:30 -0800 Paul Trebilco <[email protected]> wrote:

Christopher X. Candreva wrote:

That would be 1000's of other people's servers getting traffic from you
because someone forged their address in the spam. You are effectively
doubleing the total load spam places on the net.

This doesn't scale.

How so? Are you maybe confusing reject with bounce? If address
verification takes place while the SMTP connection is still up, no forged
adresses get messaged, at least not by the server doing the rejecting.
The other part is that you CACHE the answer you get (good, bad, or indifferent). I think that SPF+sender address verification is a GOOD thing when properly implemented. Yes it can be a bit of a hassle, but you shouldn't be sending mail you're not prepared to bounce.

That said, none of my sites are running a current enough version of Postfix to do this.