Re: [Asrg] What are the IPs that sends mail for a domain?

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Tue, 30 June 2009 11:11 UTC

Return-Path: <rsk@gsp.org>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82E33A6D95 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.515
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b4qoEBy1M-1a for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E27FA3A6B66 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squonk.gsp.org (bltmd-207.114.17.162.dsl.charm.net [207.114.17.162]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n5UBBDM7017419 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:11:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (avatar.gsp.org [192.168.0.11]) by squonk.gsp.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n5UB6HFr026109 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:06:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-4) with ESMTP id n5UBB79g020655 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:11:07 -0400
Received: (from rsk@localhost) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n5UBB5NO020558 for asrg@irtf.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:11:05 -0400
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:11:05 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <20090630111105.GA12502@gsp.org>
References: <mailman.5.1245610801.29559.asrg@irtf.org> <4A3F76B8.2030409@terabites.com> <BBBA1F6A3752AE7B96888ECB@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> <4A48FB80.10709@billmail.scconsult.com> <800E7AE85B690B4BAC93F2CD@seana-imac.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <800E7AE85B690B4BAC93F2CD@seana-imac.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] What are the IPs that sends mail for a domain?
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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, 30 Jun 2009 11:11:37 -0000

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:55:04AM +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> However, I do believe that people should take SPF records into account 
> when deciding whether to generate bounce messages. 

Despite the ostentatious claims made by its originator ("Spam as a
technical problem is solved by SPF"), SPF has no anti-spam value.
Nor should it be used when deciding whether to generate a bounce:
the answer to that is always "no".  It's far better to reject (not
to mention far simpler, with any sane MTA) and thus greatly diminish
the possibility of outscatter/backscatter spam.

---Rsk