Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On 5 Mar, 22:56, Boyd Lynn Gerber <gerb...@zenez.com> wrote:
>> After RFC 821 was mutilated by RFC 1123 email could be forged.
>> Forwarding was broken by RFC 1123 5.3.6(a) about 19 years ago. The
>> spammers figured it out about seven years ago. The concept of
>> "forwarding" as it was known before RFC 1123 5.3.6(a) does not work any
>> more, "forwarding" is now a part of the problem, like open relays.
>>
>> Because people want to forward email and the ability to track them was
>> removed. People now can and do forge email. It has become a major
>> problem just like open relays. Something has to change. SPF put back a
>> way to tell if an email was forged.
>
> This is the wrong newsgroup for this topic, op on ove to the network
> abuse discussion groups for this topic.

I take offense at your chastising Boyd for this post. I believe that it
was in response to my original post looking for help in resolving the
originating IP address's ISP and abuse@ values automatically in
the large number of bounced spam I have been receiving to my domain.

Boyd pointed out the use of SPF of which I have been ignorant and
I am looking at now as a means to remedy my problem. (Thanks again Boyd!).

I posted a problem, Boyd responded. Boyd posted the message you
responded to as additional information for clueless admin's (me)
as to why SPF is important.

>
> And there are some usable technologies to actually handle the
> forwarding problem, which is that the "bounce" address for a message
> does not get reset by the forwarding server to bounce back to the
> forwarding server itself, which should then pass it back to the
> message submitter. The result is that no one can easily tell the
> difference between a forwarded message and a faked one with a
> different "bounce" address, inundating the rest of us with the bounced
> spam.
>
> There are technologies to store a registry of incoming email, encode
> the "bounce" address going out, and allow the forwarding server to
> decode the bounce message and get it back to the recipient. It's not
> well integrated yet with major SMTP servers.
>
>
And your post is interesting as well. It could have stood alone without
the recommendation to move the discussion to another news group.

As an SCO admin, administering our own SCO servers and client's SCO servers,
my interest is in anything impacting our machines. I welcome Boyd's
contributions to this news group and look forward to reading anything
he takes the time to post as relevant to SCO users.

--
Steve Fabac
S.M. Fabac & Associates
816/765-1670