full-disclosure - Implications of outsourcing email

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <200312082108.hB8L8afD026412@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu)
Subject: Implications of outsourcing email 

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:01:59 EST, MaxPageant@....com  said:

> Question: Why don't more companies do this to authenticate their commercial 
> opt-in email????

Chicken. Egg.

Not enough companies do that to make it worth checking for.  For that matter,
even at this site our outbound mail doesn't emit from anything that our MX
points at (for a good reason - our MX's point at stuff optimized for catching
inbound mail, the outbound gate is set up to do outbound).

In any case, if I was outsourcing a mailing to 500K or 1M people (and companies
like Microsoft could easily have *legitimate* customer lists of 50M or more),
the *LAST* thing I'd want is for the outsourcing company to funnel all 1-50M
pieces of mail through my outbound gateway - that leaves *ME* sitting on all
the stuff that gets queued up rather than leaving it sitting on the outsourcing
company's server.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20031208/e3dab8ce/attachment.bin