From: “Robert A. Hayden” <rhayden@means.net>
To: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Message Hash: 02dcfdb3ad1fed5d955da0e99f56e45390af6bd7f6b6f40eb528df35ffb5e57b
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980317085417.19255A-100000@geek.net>
Reply To: <1.5.4.32.19980317141322.006c25cc@pop.pipeline.com>
UTC Datetime: 1998-03-17 14:57:14 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 06:57:14 -0800 (PST)
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <rhayden@means.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 06:57:14 -0800 (PST)
To: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Will New Sendmail Block Remailers?
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980317141322.006c25cc@pop.pipeline.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980317085417.19255A-100000@geek.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, John Young wrote:
> Markoff in the NYT reports today on the release of a new
> Sendmail upgrade by author Eric Allman that will block
> spam by checking the legitimacy of the originating address
> before delivery.
>
> The report claims that spam is up to 10% of e-mail worldwide,
> And that Sendmail is used on 75% of the computers that route
> e-mail, all of which are being fitted with the new program.
>
> What are the chances that this will affect remailers or other
> means of eternal anonymity?
Depends on how the remailer is set up.
For example, I own the domain "geek.net". If I set up a remailer and
messages resolve to "anonymous@geek.net", I suspect it will get through.
I may need to also have an alias that /dev/nulls messages to
anonymous@geek.net, but that is still a legitimate mailing address.
I think what they are trying to stop are spammers that have a return
address like "fakename@fakedomain.com" or "your@best.friend". Those
wouldn't resolve and would just get shitcanned.
IMHO, there's nothing _toooo_ sinister here, yet. But vigilance is
suggested.
=-=-=-=-=-=
Robert Hayden rhayden@means.net UIN: 3937211
IP Network Administrator http://rhayden.means.net
MEANS Telcom (612) 230-4416
Return to March 1998
Return to “Yupin Mungdee <snickers@mejl.com>”