[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 12:38:47AM +0100, Simon Waters wrote: > > And given that both firms > > responded with a strict DMARC policy, its long-term consequences may be > > significant. > > Is it fair to say this doesn't address the underlying issue. > > As I'd have thought the whole history of spam says addressing the > fundamental issue worked (taking out the bots), and Google demonstrated > that even a reasonably good player and do REALLY well with a bit of > effort at spotting dodgy accounts. Much as botnet takedowns are generally a good thing, their effect on spam shouldn't be overstated. They mostly take out the stuff that was very easy to block anyway. The issue that Yahoo and AOL are fighting (spam sent from spoofed addresses to those in their address book) is more serious, even if the numbers are much smaller. > I did see various folk moping that their emails or mailing lists were > being bounced etc, as a result of such changes, didn't realise that was > the motivation, I assumed incompetence.... The problem is that some of those folks moping probably weren't using Yahoo or AOL, but were using an email provider that adhered to the DMARC policy set by those two. What Yahoo and AOL did was pretty wrong: they caused problems for those who strictly followed RFCs and didn't give any advance warning. But I'm starting to wonder whether it will be so bad in the long run. Perhaps being able to modify the content of emails while keeping the >From address unchanged, though useful for mailing lists, causes more problems than it solves. Martijn. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq