Re: [Asrg] whitelisting links (was Re: misconception in SPF)

John Johnson <jjohnson@jdmc.org> Tue, 11 December 2012 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jjohnson@jdmc.org>
X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A0B21F8797 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:53:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eRvh-VJD93Or for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:52:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from secure.jdmc.org (secure.jdmc.org [164.58.70.160]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D111521F877B for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:52:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [164.58.70.150] (mail.jdmc.org [164.58.70.150]) by secure.jdmc.org with ESMTP id qBBEqwWE017401 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:52:58 -0600
X-Client-IP: 192.168.3.226
X-EnvRcpt: <asrg@irtf.org>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=jdmc.org; s=mail; t=1355237578; bh=c6PO8OyEshcVkMCLZMR+bmMekwAVNkTNLiGS2AwHzbw=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=mOvqHS+O2EH7rGuOi8xAPx0XS6+KeFh+GXfCPIXB7cbft7j85VKpC353KGKnUrFpG kgxx+pWm0A1GdXLb5lQX0llslEC3iS1/FiZYpx3V3PsdyQyLLG5eXrsa0tPzQ9ChrE h//WIo0jCK1tuzmgJJQXfmMARiUiMuyZkT8on2yI=
X-EnvFrom: jjohnson@jdmc.org
X-LDomain: mail.jdmc.org
X-LCount: 0
X-Vsender: dhcp3-226.jdmc.org [192.168.3.226]
Received: from [192.168.3.226] (dhcp3-226.jdmc.org [192.168.3.226]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.jdmc.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBBEqt8B015113 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:52:58 -0600
Message-ID: <50C748C7.3080104@jdmc.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:52:55 -0600
From: John Johnson <jjohnson@jdmc.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20ACFFE1@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos> <50C5A9A0.105@pscs.co.uk> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20AD01B2@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos> <20121210145627.GA21217@gsp.org> <50C6121D.9040607@dcrocker.net> <50C617A2.8090602@pscs.co.uk> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20AD5E36@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos> <50C644F6.3090901@pscs.co.uk> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20AD737F@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos> <50C6BDB2.1010407@mustelids.ca> <20121211133727.GA8759@gsp.org> <50C7414C.3030203@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <50C7414C.3030203@mtcc.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Apparently-To: <asrg@irtf.org>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 164.58.70.150
X-GlobalCerts-Milter: secure.jdmc.org 11Dec2012-08:52:58.955
Subject: Re: [Asrg] whitelisting links (was Re: misconception in SPF)
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:53:00 -0000

Michael Thomas wrote:

> Anybody who thinks that using HTML or outsourcers are "worst
> practices" is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

  I highly disagree.  A local bank just hired an outside firm to
  spam a "newsletter" to their customers in my area. It was quite
  difficult to tell if it was legitimate, as the bank had published
  SPF records, yet failed to provide the ip's of the outsourcers
  servers. And then used the banks domain name as the source.

  This should not be acceptable behavior, especially for a financial
  institution. It trains their customers to just accept anything
  and everything, they should be setting the bar, not lowering it.

-john