Slashdot Mirror


Spammers Are Early Adopters of SPF Standard

nazarijo writes "In an article entitled Spammers using sender authentication too, study says, Infoworld reports that a study by CipherTrust shows that SPF and Sender ID (SID) aren't nearly as effective as we expected them to be when combatting spam. The reason? Spammers are able to publish their own records, too. 'Spammers are now better than companies at reporting the source of their e-mail,' says Paul Judge, noted spam researcher and CipherTrust CTO. Combined with low adoption rates of either SID or SPF (31 of the Fortune 1000 according to CipherTrust), this means that the common dream of SPF or SID clearing up the spam problem wont be coming true. Wong, one of the original authors of SPF and a co-author of SID, says that it was never intended to combat all spam. Weng, another researcher in the space, says that this is just one of the many pieces of the puzzle needed to combat spam. Various SID implementations exist, including a new one from Sendmail.net based on their milter API, making it easy for you to adopt SID and try this for yourself."

4 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. spam spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    penis penis nigeria tenn porno

  2. Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    Wong, one of the original authors of SPF and a co-author of SID, says that it was never intended to combat all spam.

    Most likely it was designed for "national security".

    Big brother democrats would like to keep an eye on gun-loving individuals, so that their girlie-man interests would not be endangered.

  3. Real world vs. fanboy fantasies by Mike+Bourna · · Score: -1, Troll
    I suppose this will have the GNOO/LinuxOS fanboys frothing at the mouth, SPF being yet another consumer protection invention by Microsoft and all.

    I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.

    I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:

    Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
    • Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
    • Training costs were 32.3% better.


    They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
    • $40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
    • $1.79 per peak request per second.


    Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
    • 28.2% less for large enterprises.
    • 25.0% less for medium organizations.


    A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
    • Is nearly three hours faster.
    • Requires 77% fewer steps.


    Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
    • Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
    • Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.


    These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.

    Who do you think we professionals trust more?
    Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???

    --
    Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan

    Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
    under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
    or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
    with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
    Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
    Free Documentation License".
    --
    Copyright (c) 2006 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
  4. What the?! by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 0, Troll

    So that's it??

    Any chance that "Wong", "Weng" and possibly "Wang" and many others are all really one person?

    The department just create new names to make themselves look big :)

    Then again, I seriously doubt it is meant to fix anything, it is just to create a new intermediatary so that we will have to end up paying them.

    Constantly paying and paying, can't run away from it in Corporate Amerika!!