|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 DKIM is unclear=
- 2 Removal of content
- 3 It's not relevant to email spoofing
- 4 How to solve this problem should be listed in the article.
- 5 Legality
- 6 Methods?
- 7 Email hoaxes
- 8 This article is misleading and should be rewritten.
- 9 Consequences?
- 10 Seems to equate email spoofing with phishing
- 11 I was hoping this article would answer my question
- 12 why do month old delighted adds still show up on CL ?
DKIM is unclear=
The article says that DKIM is a method to prevent email spoofing (fake return address), but the wikipage on DKIM says "DKIM signatures do not encompass the message envelope, which holds the return-path and message recipients." This indicates to me that DKIM does not offer any protection against spoofing. Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Removal of content
I have reverted, again, removal of large slabs of content. If an editor considers that they should not be included in the article then please discuss it here, providing reasons for that view. Removal of significant content without proper discussion is considered vandalism and could result in a block. TerriersFan 03:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not relevant to email spoofing
That content is about spoofing TCP sessions in general, so it belongs in another article. The person who made those reverts was actually improving the article. As you say, some discussion would have helped you understand the motive, but it wasn't vandalism even if done without discussion. Wholesale reverts are fine, and are not vandalism; they're being bold. Please assume good faith; it isn't helpful to make accusations of vandalism against users who have acted in good faith.
--18.104.22.168 12:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. The vast majority of this content has nothing to do with email spoofing. It is about TCP/IP, a much more low-level topic. Superm401 - Talk 18:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
How to solve this problem should be listed in the article.
A discussion of legality would be interesting, I believe it's not illegal unless there is an attempt to obtain sensitive information. I won't add this to the article since I'm not sure. Wolfmankurd (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is misleading and should be rewritten.
As this article is currently written it makes a false impression that e-mail spoofing involves some kind of "hacking". In reality it's not different from writting a false return address on the snail mail letter. There is no protection or authentication of any kind, the SMTP servers accept any valid address.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I was looking to see what the consequences of spoofing might be. e.g. what security problems could arise from having been spoofed. But could not find any details in this article.
If anyone knows, can you please add them to this article.
I agree! If a worm is responsible for stealing addresses from an on line address book, please give a hint of the names or categories of the worms, or if they are typically removed by anti-virus software. Poor Alice, in the example, seems to need to take action to stop the spoofing, but what action should Alice take? Should poor Alice be changing her mail password, or do something else? That would make this article more complete and clearer. Prairieplant (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Seems to equate email spoofing with phishing
I was hoping this article would answer my question
The article says, "User1 triggers an e-mail address spoofing worm, and the worm finds the addresses email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com within the users e-mail address book."
User1 has those email addresses in his book? Now I received an email from one of my email addresses, and it said the email had been sent from me to other users in my address book for that email address. At the time it was sent, I was on a library computer which had given a message that it wasn't secure, but I interpreted this as being like when the man in charge of such things said something like, "That's a message which is trying to get us to pay for something we don't need to pay for."
He ran a scan after I told him what happened and never found anything wrong. I haven't found anything either (even though I opened the email on my own computer). I did, however, find the email in the sent folder of the address it was supposedly sent from.
why do month old delighted adds still show up on CL ?
i heve never seen this problem before, i delighted a couple of adds on may 7 2013 and low and behold, there still there? go into > all for sale <> put in atv <> and go to page 6 or may 7. im not shure who is doing this, but it needs to stop. by the way, there are people that work for CL that just arnt nice. Im sorry to say this, but it is true, they just do not care for the person that is in the right. i have 6 adds up on may 7 and i don't know how or why they are there. you tell me CL ? (THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME)— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)