Slashdot Mirror


AOL Tests Sender Permitted From / E-mail Caller ID

securitas writes "ZDNet reports that AOL is testing Sender Permitted From (SPF), 'an antispam filter intended to accurately trace the origin of e-mail messages.' AOL is performing the widescale SPF test with its 33 million subscribers worldwide. The system works by letting recipients use the SPF record to cross-check DNS data associated with AOL's IP addresses and confirm that the message originated from AOL's servers. The system is one of three competing e-mail authentication protocols. The other IP-identifying protocols are the Designated Mailers Protocol (DMP) and Reverse Mail Exchange (RME/RMX). All systems alter the DNS database to let e-mail servers publish the IP addresses that they use to send e-mail."

56 of 448 comments (clear)

  1. Big Deal by Ridgelift · · Score: 5, Funny

    So what? Microsoft is working on a new secret email technology and they need people to test it. They are paying people for it too! Send this email message to 10 people and receive a check for $50.00 from Microsoft. My friend Tom did it and it really works!

    1. Re:Big Deal by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 4, Funny


      I know a guy, higher than entry-level, who sent it to everyone in his 10,000+ employee company. Fired for being clueless. And downing the email system.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
  2. Hrm by The-Bus · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't know anyone respectable who uses AOL so I won't ever be able to find out how this works...

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    1. Re:Hrm by GammaTau · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't know anyone respectable who uses AOL so I won't ever be able to find out how this works...

      Heh. Actually (if I have understood correctly) SPF should prevent anyone from spoofing aol.com as the sender address during the SMTP session. So if a spammer attempts to spoof aol.com and your mail server is SPF-aware, then it would be good for you and AOL because you won't get spam and AOL won't get bounces for the addresses that had problems with delivery (and with spam, problems with delivery are not rare).

      At least this is how I have understood it.

  3. So far, so good by TheOtherChimeraTwin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've had trouble with spammers doing small runs with my domain name on AOL. Since I've set up SPF, I haven't had a single bounce from AOL-bound spam. It might just be luck, but as far as I can tell, SPF is helping.

  4. Hashcash anyone? by product+byproduct · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here's a nice way. Before someone can send some mail, he has to get some exponent from mersenne.org which needs double-checking, run the primality test and report the low order 64 bits of the final S_{P-2} value, called a residue. If that value matches the value that mersenne.org expects, then the mail goes through.

    Nice deterrent for spam, and as a side-effect one more Mersenne exponent has been double-checked.

    1. Re:Hashcash anyone? by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All variants of "Make it computationally expensive to send e-mail!" prevent all mass mailings of all kinds... not just spam. You're tossing out a few babies with the bath water, that's just not a working solution.

      Besides, there's not much stopping Spammers from just buying the processing resources they need. Whatever meaningless task is picked, development would immediately start on making that puzzle easier to solve. You'd start seeing processor chips dedicated to the task...

      Being cash-expensive is less popular on /. because most geeks have more processor cycles than dollars, but at least cash has a more stable value over time...

  5. Simply Amazed by inode_buddha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For once I might actually approve of something AOL does. OK I didn't RTFA but it sure looks a lot like whitelist filtering. Here's hoping that others pick up on this idea if it works out! (my dialup had 530 spams in the last month... thank you, Bayes!)

    --
    C|N>K
    1. Re:Simply Amazed by ldspartan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      SPF is broken. It breaks forwarding, unless you want to rewrite the From header at every hop.

      Mail signing (what yahoo proposed recently) is a lot closer to working sender verification. It would allow a message to take any number of hops, and still be verified.

      --
      lds

    2. Re:Simply Amazed by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Informative

      SPF is based on the envelope sender not the From address - I suggest you read the FAQ first.

      Yes, you have to change the envelope on each hop, but that's a good thing, as it means that each hop is validated which makes it harder to spam.

  6. Re:Still don't get it.... by pollock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously. Are you people really getting so much spam every day that the "delete" button just doesn't do it for you?

    In short, yes.

  7. Should faking be illegal? by Thinkit4 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sure I'm libertarian like many other nerds, but I can't think of a good reason to fake email. I want my whitelists to work. A technical solution is always better, though.

    --
    -I am an elective eunuch.
    1. Re:Should faking be illegal? by jrockway · · Score: 3, Insightful

      NO no no no no no. Faking email is fine. People need to learn to NOT TRUST the From field. Legislation gets us nowhere. I mean, viruses are illegal and there are plenty of those. It's illegal to hijack a plane and fly it into a building, but that happened too.

      Solution? SIGN YOUR EMAIL. Then the recipient knows that you wrote (or at least signed) the email. Key exchange a problem? Maybe you shouldn't be using email, then.

      If all my email were signed, I wouldn't even need a spam filter. I could just trash all non-signed email.

      Unfortunately, my friends (except for one) find it too hard to download/buy GPG/PGP and click the "sign" button when they mail me. Oh well, what can be expected of people that are too lazy to hit the shift key after sentences. *sigh*

      --
      My other car is first.
  8. this is not whitelist. by man_ls · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not a whitelist filter.

    It's not any kind of a filter.

    It just means that AOL has published SPF records for its mail servers in their DNS entries. Any mail server speaking SPF, receiving mail from AOL.COM, will check the SPF record.

    If the SPF record (which will contain the IP addresses of AOL's mail servers) doesn't match the originating IP address of the mail message (as in, a spoofed header) the message is invalid. Then it can be either dropped or bounced or whatever.

    If the SPF record matches the initiating IP address (as in the case of a message legitimately sent by the mail server) it's clear and goes through.

    1. Re:this is not whitelist. by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the SPF record (which will contain the IP addresses of AOL's mail servers) doesn't match the originating IP address of the mail message (as in, a spoofed header) the message is invalid.

      So, in essence, AOL has decided that it's customers can no longer send mail from their AOL email address, unless they're logged into AOL.

      This does not bode well.

      I don't use AOL, but if MY ISP decided that I could no longer use my personal email address while I was at work (or at an internet cafe, or whatever), I'd be pretty pissed.

    2. Re:this is not whitelist. by weave · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I believe along with this, your ISP or employer would also have to set up authenticated SMTP so you could send email through their servers legitimately when you're outside their network. Shame that many places now routinely block outgoing port 25 though...

    3. Re:this is not whitelist. by Frater+219 · · Score: 5, Informative
      So, in essence, AOL has decided that it's customers can no longer send mail from their AOL email address, unless they're logged into AOL.

      No, they haven't. Here's the current TXT record for aol.com.:

      v=spf1 ip4:152.163.225.0/24 ip4:205.188.139.0/24 ip4:205.188.144.0/24 ip4:205.188.156.0/24 ip4:205.188.157.0/24 ip4:205.188.159.0/24 ip4:64.12.136.0/24 ip4:64.12.137.0/24 ip4:64.12.138.0/24 ptr:mx.aol.com ?all

      Now, if you knew SPF, you would recognize that the last bit -- ?all -- means that AOL is not stating that AOL-user mail is only legitimate if sent from AOL mail servers. The ?all tag means that hosts that don't match the rest of the SPF record are taken as unknown -- not as failures. That would be -all.

    4. Re:this is not whitelist. by M.+Silver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mod me redundant because I say this *every* time somebody whines about this, but:

      I don't use AOL, but if MY ISP decided that I could no longer use my personal email address while I was at work (or at an internet cafe, or whatever), I'd be pretty pissed.

      So you do what you're already supposed to do in this situation, and set the From line to your personal email address, and the SENDER line to wherever you really are. Mailing lists do this all the time.

      --

      Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
    5. Re:this is not whitelist. by fo0bar · · Score: 3, Informative
      Good idea, but the default port for SMTP over SSL is still port 25.

      Actually, the default port for SMTP-over-SSL is 465. However, there is also SSL-over-SMTP (aka STARTTLS), where the client connects to the server on port 25, client does an EHLO, server lists STARTTLS as a capability, client issues STARTTLS command, and from that point on both sides communicate over SSL.

    6. Re:this is not whitelist. by kiolbasa · · Score: 3, Informative

      ISPs that provide SMTP-auth relaying accessible from outside their network usually make it available on an alternate port, say 2025. Most moderm mail apps now make it easy to use a different port. And I don't think it is too much to ask, or too dirty of a hack, since the only purpose of this port is authenticated mail relaying, not actual delivery. The distinction between the two is becoming more important for a useful system. E-mail is changing. Thank the spammers.

      --

      Beer wants to be free
    7. Re:this is not whitelist. by ajs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Now, if you knew SPF, you would recognize that the last bit -- ?all"

      Hate to sound snide, but if you knew SPF you would recognize that as a transitional setting, which the SPF specs suggest you set a hard cuttoff date around.

      SPF's failing, as far as I can tell is that there is no dynamic authentication capability for a client out in space that wants to send mail "from" all of the 20 or so domains that that user had addresses with (e.g. my spamcop, personal, aol, work, oss project and other addresses). I don't want to go hunt down a server that will talk to me for mail origination for EVERY ONE of these domains... I just want a way to tell their servers, "hey, I just sent a message from your domain to joe@example.com, heads up" and have the right thing happen. There should then be a way for a server to say, "heya, I just got mail from your domain to my joe@example.com address... that yoy?" It needs to be message-by-message like this, and if that sounds like a lot of overhead... I GUARANTEE you that it is less than handling bounces for every virus message ever crafted in your name....

    8. Re:this is not whitelist. by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yes, I still say it is no big deal. A 50 MB attatchment is extremely rare, and vacations to far-away countries where you email people 50 MB attachments are even rarer. Even in this worst-case scenario it will only take a minute or three longer to transfer to the US than to a local mailserver (assuming you have broadband, otherwise your local connection will be the bottleneck anyway).

      Using a local mailserver is a pointless optimization, adding needless complexity and vulnerability to the email system. Globally, the extra resources used would be negligable. Actually, since most people either don't bother or don't know how to configure their mail client to do what you describe, everyone *already* sends all their mail through their ISP's servers. It hasn't been a tremendous problem so far.

      If you want to transfer 50 MB, and you just can't stand the thought of wasting a little precious bandwidth, then you can use another transfer method. Most service providers won't allow 50 MB emails anyway. Use an instant messaging program to transfer it directly, or set up an http server and host it yourself. If your ISP doesn't allow you to do that, that's much worse than requiring you to use their mail servers.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
  9. What about commercial or throwaway accounts? by Anonymovs+Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Lots of e-businesses generate unique email addresses for different consumer requests, which can then be thrown away, and individuals and mailing list managers (like ezmlm for subscription confirmations) do this too. It works because often the part of the email address after a + sign (or for qmail, a -) is ignored by the mail delivery agent, but can still be used for filtering/sorting mail by the user. Seems to me any DNS-based email address registry has to be smart enough to deal with it.

    I suspect that as the big commercial guys get more and more aggressive in breaking email standards in the name of combating spam, the internet will split into different incompatible email groups: the old-fashioned types (which include many university departments still) who use a text console and a program like pine or elm, and the AOL/Hotmail/Yahoo crowd. To some extent it's already happening: I can barely read some messages sent from MS Outlook, they're formatted so badly, and as a result I'm less likely to reply to them.

    1. Re:What about commercial or throwaway accounts? by Alawishes · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is a great feature! I never understood how it would really work until I started using Shadango (based on a recommendation posted on /.)

      See, I generate a disposable ("Spamtrap") account, and post that all over the internet. When the crap gets too unbearable, I just regenerate it. I can't even imagine how I survived without a disposable account in the past.

      Also, and more related to the story, what will happen to sites that let you consolidate all your other accounts? I use Shadango to check my POP/IMAP/Y!/Hotmail/AOL/mail.com accounts (because it filters them, plus I have a bigger quota), but I guess it's just a matter of time until I won't be able to 'send' from those addresses anymore.

      Hmmm... it sucks that spammers have slowly taken away all the freedom that the email

      It's hard to win a fight when you don't know who to swing at.

      Susie Johnson

  10. Doesn't protect against cracked computers by h2oliu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The biggest weakness of this system is that it doesn't protect against some user's system sitting on a broadband DSL/Modem line that has a Trojan Horse used to e-mail the spam. AOL's system probably would only encourage more viruses/worm designed to make computers email relays.

    Of course if all non-business accounts were prevented from hosting an SMTP server that would help solve that problem, but I don't think that would go over very well with the Slashdot crowd. I'm not even sure where I stand on that issue.

    --
    Ok, I give up, why you?
    1. Re:Doesn't protect against cracked computers by FattMattP · · Score: 5, Informative
      The biggest weakness of this system is that it doesn't protect against some user's system sitting on a broadband DSL/Modem line that has a Trojan Horse used to e-mail the spam. AOL's system probably would only encourage more viruses/worm designed to make computers email relays.
      Correct. SPF isn't an anti-spam tool. It's an anti-forgery tool. AOL's SPF record in effect says "These are the IP addresses that are authorized to send mail whose FROM: address ends in aol.com. Please take that fact into consideration if you receive mail that says it's from aol.com but doesn't come from one of the authorized IP addresses."
      --
      Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
    2. Re:Doesn't protect against cracked computers by wayne · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yes, but those cracked PCs will not be able to send email claiming to be from my domain to anyone who listens to my very restrictive SPF records. This will help reduce the number of bounces I back from forged sender addresses.

      SPF is just one tool to help tighten up the security of the SMTP system. It lets domain owners say who is authorized to send email using their domain name. This is a useful thing to do, and it allows for other things to build on it. For example, RHSBLs that blacklist domain names instead of IP addresses are much more useful after SPF checking has been done. SPF checking can also help detect phishing schemes.

      --
      SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
  11. this ain't gonna work. by cdn-programmer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What will work is a certification that is revolkable. The concept is embodied in public key encryption and certification.

    Basically - all we need to do is this. We have a trusted institution like a bank or your local government office issue a digital ID to everyone who wishes to participate... purely voluntary.

    Next - those who wish to participate use an email client that refuses to accept anything from anyone who does not have a valid certificate.

    Next - we set up a black hole list and the email clients refuse emails from anyone in the blackhole list.

    Next - we make this list available to the issuing authorities and if they re-issue we blackhole that authority.

    By doing this we create a beuracratic nightmare for our wanna be spammers and everyone else is pretty much free to go on as they have.

    I for one will NOT join an opt in list because there are far to many people who have legitimate reasons to contact me. Yet the spammers? well - there are not that many of them... they are really a fringe group actually.

  12. SPF is good fro the PHBs... by bc90021 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It works well with them for two primary reasons:

    1) It is easy to do. You can go to the SPF site and they have a wizard to fill out so you know exactly how to change your DNS, and

    2) You can change things over gradually. After you've changed the DNS, you start by aloowing everyone, and then as more people join the system, you implement the protocol slowly.

    That last point is particularly good, since the PHB types freak if their email isn't exactly the way that they're used to... and they also freak when implementing new technologies. You can assure them that nothing is changing at first, and that all changes will be made gradually and in steps.

    The SPF guys understand that that's necessary, and even have a PHB Executive Summary page.

  13. Publish SPF records by FattMattP · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't forget to publish SPF records for your domain if you have the ability to do so. If you have already done so, please register your domain via the validator.

    --
    Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
  14. Re:AOL muscle by PygmySurfer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Using muscle to force the Internet into a standard isn't going to work. We need something that *is* a standard, rather than *pushing* a standard upon people.

    Standards don't miraculously appear out of mid-air. Standards are created when one implementation of an idea is chosen over other implementations. Unfortunately, as at least one of your examples shows, we see that its not a

    Right now, AOL and several other groups are developing an implementation of a Spam-tracking system. Eventually, one of these systems may win out. If/when it does, a standard is born.

  15. Re:Still don't get it.... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Seriously. Are you people really getting so much spam every day that the "delete" button just doesn't do it for you?

    I think the problem is larger than the few annoying emails people get everyday. There's two things to consider.

    1) Cummatively, spam is not just a headache but can be resource draining. Getting 10 or so a day for ten days if I don't check email leads to 100 emails. It would be one thing if it affected me but I'm not the only one that uses my mail server or ISP. It bogs down the mail server that I use whether it's my work email or my personal one. At work, my company has to dedicate resources to fight spam which costs companies money. My only effective choice right now is to abandon my email address every year so I don't get spam for a while.

    2) Spam is not discrimating. Offers that are sexual in nature may be innocuous to me, but for parents that's another matter. They want their kids to learn email but can't do much to protect them from this content besides not use email.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  16. AOL is the Wal*Mart of the Internet. by vegetablespork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If anyone could force a change to the current email system (unfortunately), it's AOL. If AOL said that beginning 00:00 next Sunday, mail from hosts without valid SPF records would be rejected, major ISPs and corporations would fall immediately into line. Those running their own SMTP servers would either make SPF records or be forced to use their ISP's smarthost.

    --

    Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

  17. Re:AOL muscle by FattMattP · · Score: 5, Informative
    Using muscle to force the Internet into a standard isn't going to work. We need something that *is* a standard, rather than *pushing* a standard upon people.
    SPF isn't an AOL thing. It's something created independently and several people, most notably Meng Weng Wong, are working hard to make it a standard. There is an RFC in draft form. Feel free to join the mailing list if you want to participate in its development. AOL is just the largest user at the moment along with several others:
    • AOL.com
    • AltaVista.com
    • DynDNS.org
    • LiveJournal.com
    • OReilly.com
    • Oxford.ac.uk
    • PhilZimmermann.com
    • Perl.org
    • w3.org
    --
    Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
  18. As usual, D. J. Bernstein has the ACTUAL solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The idea behind Internet Mail 2000 is obviously correct. Why waste time on DNS-based approaches when we COULD be developing the Solution?

  19. problem by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 5, Funny

    This presents a problem to those of us who have unreasonably short penises.

  20. Re:Still don't get it.... by securitas · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Seriously. Are you people really getting so much spam every day that the "delete" button just doesn't do it for you?
    Really, now, junk mail is just not that pressing an issue to me. And I can't see why/how it's such a huge issue for anyone else.

    Let me explain it to you.

    Yes. I personally receive over 5000 spam messages a day. Thanks to the very clever spammers who are getting better at circumventing spam filters, I'm seriously considering moving to a white-list, and even that may not stem the tide. Part of the problem is with false-positives and the fact that people don't know how to write a proper subject line. Sometimes legitimate and very important messages have been contained in messages with subjects and other message body content that can resemble spam.

    As a test I have set up e-mail addresses that I have never used or publicized in any way at a number of domains and providers. Guess what? Within days (sometimes hours) spam lands in those mailboxes, too, and based on the user/account names that I set up, I know it's not because of a simple dictionary attack.

    Just because you don't personally experience it (consider yourself among the lucky few) doesn't mean that it's not a real problem. FYI, SPF is not (strictly speaking) from AOL. It's just being rolled out on a massive scale by AOL, which should be a good test of the technology.

    I don't know if this is the right move, but something has to be done to eradicate this plague and its carriers.

  21. Re:Veri$ign? by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You don't need to have key signing events, because in the case of email public keys, it is assumed that the key will be signed by at least one party other than the subject: their ISP. So if Yahoo! lists your email-signing public key in their DNS, they will have signed it as well.

    SPF is incredibly broken because it allows ISPs to control who sends mail from where. We should be resisting SPF and all other similar proposals and backing public keys in DNS.

  22. Built on existing standard by richard_za · · Score: 5, Informative
    A little research showed that it is built on existing standards, namely DNS and SASL SMTP. This should ease it's implementation. But heres some obvious ways to prevent spam.
    • If you have a common first name, don't have an email address of the form firstname@domain, you are guaranteed to be hit by a dictionary attack
    • Don't publish your email address on the web, make sure any websites you subscribe to hide your email address or use email address hiding technique
    • If your on a mailing list make sure that if the archive is available on web that it hides your address
    • Use a bayesian mail filter
  23. Why this is a big deal by jhunsake · · Score: 5, Informative

    It means that any system administrator can configure their mail transfer agent to bin any spam pretending to come from aol.com with a 100% success rate. And this goes for anyone else publishing an SPF record for your domain.

    SPF is a proposed standard for a domain owner to tell mailers where mail From: that domain may originate. The domain owner publishes a DNS TXT record for their domain with (at the simplest) list of IP addresses. Participating mail transfer agents can then look this record up and make a policy decision on whether the mail is likely to be legitimate. The presence of an SPF record on a domain at present means that while you still can't be sure when you're handling spam, you can be sure when you have a piece of non-spam because the SPF record tells you so.

    SPF is not a wholly original idea (e.g. up "designated mailer protocol"), and certainly not the simplest implementation but the important factor is that its proponent, Meng Wong, is an excellent lobbyer and spokesperson, as well as someone who as the nous to put forward a useful protocol (he founded pobox.com). It's currently at the point where lots of implementation are being written, with the canonical version being Meng's Perl modules. Currently I'm helping to finish the C implementation which will shortly be integrated into qmail and exim.

    The tipping point (I hope) will be when a domain not publishing an SPF record or publishing a globaly permissive one will be considered "obviously" untrustworthy. Combining SPF authorisation with a more traditional "From: domain blacklist" will give spammers a very very hard time indeed forging mail. But AOL publishing a record (we hope) shows the way the wind is blowing: the rest of the world does seem to have to change their mail server configuration to keep mail flowing to AOL.

    So go on, it's dead easy, publish a record for your domain now. Tell people where your mail comes from. Look, there's even a wizard to help you.

  24. in a utopia, yes. by Kunta+Kinte · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Using muscle to force the Internet into a standard isn't going to work. We need something that *is* a standard, rather than *pushing* a standard upon people.

    We've been waiting for an anti-spam standard for years now. What do we have? Nothing.

    It's about time someone with clout got up and started making decisions.

    I have 4 blocklist on my email server, and still we get a ton of spam everyday. My users hate it, I hate but we have to deal with it whilst the IETF works out their political agenda.

    PS. I've also been waiting for the Calendar Access Protocol for a while now. Years, where is it? We're on draft 11 now.

    Sometimes design by commitee plain sucks; and we just have to admit that.

    --
    Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
  25. Some educated opinions on the subject. by mcroot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Before looking at SPF you may want to read what Claus Assmann, and Wietse Venema have to say on the subject.

    If you don't know who these two people are, I seriously hope you're not someone who's making decisions affecting SMTP on the Internet.

    1. Re:Some educated opinions on the subject. by gfilion · · Score: 3, Informative

      Before looking at SPF you may want to read what Claus Assmann [theaimsgroup.com], and Wietse Venema [theaimsgroup.com] have to say on the subject.

      You might also want to read what Steve Bellovin (one of the guys who invented USENET among other things) and Eric Raymond have to say about it. They spend a little more time understanding SPF...

      Wired story with Raymond's comments.

      Bellovin's comments in an email to the SPF mailing list.

  26. Yahoo's DomainKeys breaks things too by wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yahoo's DomainKeys proposal involves taking a cryptographic hash of the message body *and* headers. It then encrypts the hash with a private key, puts the result in a header with a tag saying where to get the public key to check the resulting message.

    The problems with Yahoo's Domainkeys, are as follows:

    • You complain about bounces, but this system does not verify the envelope from, and therefor will not prevent all those bounces.
    • A spammer who can get an account on your system (think Yahoo here), can send email to another account they control. They then have an email with your signed hash on it, which they can resend all they want.
    • Mailing lists, some email forwarding services, and other systems will add information to both the body and headers of a message. MicroSoft Exchange servers store emails in an internal format and recreate the heasers when they forward it on. *poof*, you now have an invalid hash.
    • Hashing and then using public key encryption to sign the emails is fairly expensive. The keys that you would look up in DNS are going to be fairly large. All-in-all, this is a fairly expensive proposal, and it doesn't really solve any problems.

    I think SPF is a far better better proposal for this kind of thing.

    --
    SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
  27. you missunderstand SPF by Kunta+Kinte · · Score: 3, Informative
    Lots of e-businesses generate unique email addresses for different consumer requests, which can then be thrown away, and individuals and mailing list managers (like ezmlm for subscription confirmations) do this too. It works because often the part of the email address after a + sign (or for qmail, a -) is ignored by the mail delivery agent, but can still be used for filtering/sorting mail by the user. Seems to me any DNS-based email address registry has to be smart enough to deal with it.

    The recipient's MTA will check the sender's SPF record. You can auto-generate all the email accounts you'd like, only the domain name portion of the email address is authenticated in SPF.

    In fact that was one of the arguments against SPF, people said that it did not go far enough and actually authenticate users.

    Personally, as someone who has to administer an email server and whose domains are sometimes used in forgeries for spam ( last one was a few days ago ), I'm all for SPF.

    --
    Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
  28. You are incorrect by Powercntrl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    AOL has rate limiting implemented server-side. Try to send too many e-mails at one time and your AOL account gets nuked AUTOMATICALLY by a script. If you're getting spam with @aol.com as the origin, it's forged. This is EXACTLY why AOL is implenting SPF - they're probably sick of being associated with spam they are NOT The origin of!

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  29. Re:I forsee a problem by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No it wouldn't. Just follow the proper protocol. The "From:" address should be your cable-domain address because that's what you're actually sending from. The "Reply-To:" address can be your dial-up address, because that's where you would like any replies to go.

    You're spoofing your "From:" address at the moment, and that's exactly what nobody should be allowed to do for any reason...

  30. Re:Still don't get it.... by ozric99 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Seriously. Are you people really getting so much spam every day that the "delete" button just doesn't do it for you?

    My Popfile stats since I last reset it just before Christmas:

    Inbox - 175
    Invoices - 57
    Newsletters - 343
    Spam - 20231

    Accuracy of 98.73%
    Yes, 97% of my email is spam :(

    That's across about 5 ISP accounts and a few domains.

  31. Re:Still don't get it.... by billh · · Score: 4, Informative
    Seriously. Are you people really getting so much spam every day that the "delete" button just doesn't do it for you?

    New: 2911 Total: 8639

    That is from the last 6 weeks. Less than 1% are real messages (domain renewals).

  32. Re:Still don't get it.... by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 4, Funny

    Really, now, junk mail is just not that pressing an issue to me

    Oh really, matrophe@sdf.lonestar.org, it's not? I wonder why that is, matrophe@sdf.lonestar.org. Let me tell you something, matrophe@sdf.lonestar.org, sometimes spam starts and you don't know how. It goes like this, matrophe@sdf.lonestar.org: One day you'll check your mail and there will be a single spam e-mail, not addressed to you matrophe@sdf.lonestar.org. Then a week later, it's a couple a day, matrophe@sdf.lonestar.org. And it keeps growing, matrophe@sdf.lonestar.org, until you get a filter like popfile or you just stop using the address matrophe@sdf.lonestar.org.

    I hope this cleared it up for you, matrophe@sdf.lonestar.org.

  33. Re:As usual, D. J. Bernstein has the ACTUAL soluti by HiKarma · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is no solution. It stops the load of sending the bodies of spams, but the annoyance of spams still remains.

    It also introduces a lot of problems. Unless you just immediately fetch, it tells the sender where you were (IP address) and when at the time you fetch the mail. If the sender's server is down you may not be able to fetch it at all. Response times get slower, again unless we just use this to implement the old pre-send system, in which case we don't get its benefits.

    A mixed system (pre-send small mail, post-fetch large or questionable mail) can have some of the benefits but still faces problems. And spam still comes.

  34. Re:AOL muscle by dev11 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    AOL didn't create SPF. It is just one of the proposed anti-spoof techniques out there. I am not a big fan of AOL/Time Warner, but I am glad to see them trying this out. Many Internet "standards" are de facto standards, which are later adopted as official, because they work the best. If committee designed standards were always adopted, the "Internet" may have used the OSI (very bad) protocols instead of the cleanly designed TCP/IP, since that at one time was the official standard of the US government, IIRC. Of course it wouldn't be the Internet, as IP stands for Internet Protocol. Like it or not, AOL is a large company that has a big subscriber base. In today's world, in order for any of these standards to take hold, I feel there needs to be prominent early adopters to create the necessary momentum. This is just a test, after all. AOL is not forcing anybody to do anything. AOL is trying this for their self interest, but if SPF works, then that is a good thing, and it benefits everybody who uses it.

  35. Re:As usual, D. J. Bernstein has the ACTUAL soluti by gfilion · · Score: 3, Informative

    The idea behind Internet Mail 2000 [cr.yp.to] is obviously correct. Why waste time on DNS-based approaches when we COULD be developing the Solution?

    Because it's not backward compatible.

    SPF is a simple and backward compatible solution to email forgeries. People who don't use it are still able to use email, while people who use it are protected against forgeries.

    Everyone and their brother are reinvented email theses days without realising that you need to improve the existing email system. It's not possible to throw away the existing system.

  36. Re:AOL muscle by Nevo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How do you think standards come to be?

    One day there's no standard and then, POOF, there is?

    Standards come into existence by the cooperation of many people deciding to do something together. Which is what's happening with SPF. SPF has been a proposed standard for a while now... AOL is the large adopter that's going to propel SPF to an accepted standard.

  37. Re:Still don't get it.... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, in the near-term, SPF won't do anything to slow the quantity of spam. Regardless of what the most die-hard rabid supporters would like everyone to believe.

    SPF is an attempt to stop the practice of domain-forging or "joe-jobbing". Which, for a business domain is important. Right now, anyone can pretend to be joe@mycompany.com and either tarnish our company's name, or simply make life extremely difficult for us when our ISP cuts us off for spamming (when we didn't do it).

    However, it is likely to have some beneficial side-effects like making domain-based whitelisting/blacklisting more effective. It raises the bar one more notch for a spammer (now they have to either find a non-protected domain to forge, route their spam through authorized servers for a domain where it's likely to be noticed and blocked, or register throw-away domains to push their product).

    (And SPF is very similar to what AOL already requires if you want to have your domain whitelisted with them. You're required to list the IP addresses that send outbound e-mail for your domain, anything else gets dumped in the bit-bucket or at least is likely to get tagged as spam by the filters.)

    --
    Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  38. Re:No Faking Here by Trebonius · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not really.

    If you use the smtp server (with authentication) provided by whoever owns the domain name on your 10-year-old email address, and they set up SPF, you'll be fine.

    SPF doesn't have anything to do with what IP address you connect to the smtp server from. It just validates the smtp server.

    It just means you can't use your own local mail server to send from a domain you don't own.