- Previous message: Magnus Bäck: "Re: policy daemon questions"
- Maybe in reply to: (no name): "Avoiding UCE"
- Next in thread: Robert Felber: "Re: Avoiding UCE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: (no name) (no email)
Date: Tue Aug 02 2005 - 07:25:22 EDT
>May I just say, BAD IDEA IMHO!
>
>Just look at your own post to the list and you will see why:
>
>Received: from deuce.deuceswilddesigns.com (unknown [66.225.199.50])
>by english-breakfast.cloud9.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41231B389 for
><>; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 06:21:49 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from beknown by deuce.deuceswilddesigns.com with local (Exim 4.50)
>id 1Dztu8-0004oi-9T for ; Tue,
>02 Aug 2005 10:21:48 +0000
>Received: from 127.0.0.1 ([127.0.0.1])
>(SquirrelMail authenticated user )
>by www.be-known-online.com with HTTP; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:21:48 +0000 (UTC)
>
>Pattern A would fail because:
>MAIL FROM =
>HELO/EHLO = deuce.deuceswilddesigns.com (unknown [66.225.199.50])
>
>Pattern B would fail because: (verified using DNS Stuff's rDNS lookup)
>HELO/EHLO = deuce.deuceswilddesigns.com (unknown [66.225.199.50])
>PTR = 66.225.199.50 PTR record: *unknown.ord.scnet.net.* [TTL 3600s]
>[A=None] **ERROR** A record does not point back to original IP.
>
>
>
I know I'm replying to myself... but just wanted to also point out, I
did make the assumption that the from header and the smtp sender matched
in the origional submitted email.
|
|
|