[conspire] (forw) Re: Email( spoofing)

[Rick Moen]

He lied to me and tried to con me squarely _within_ my areas of
professional expertise, and now he wants me to get him a job and
complains about "insult".

OK, that's on-brand.

----- Forwarded message from Sarmad Amin <aminsarmad719 at gmail.com> -----

Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:54:58 -0700
From: Sarmad Amin <aminsarmad719 at gmail.com>
To: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
Subject: Re: Email( spoofing)

I am jobless. Can you provide me with a job? If you provide me a job I am
very grateful if you don't provide me a job not your right to insult.


On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 12:21, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> Quoting Sarmad Amin (aminsarmad719 at gmail.com):
>
> > Hello Team,
> >
> > I am a security researcher and I found some Vulnerabilities in your site
> > one of them is as following:
> >
> > DESCRIPTION:
> >
> > I just sent a forged email to my email address that appears to originate
> > from rick at linuxmafia.com I was able to do this because of the
> > following DMARC record:
> > DMARC record lookup and validation for:linuxmafia.com
> >
> > "No DMARC Record found"
> > Or/And
> > "No DMARC Reject Policy"
>
> Bullshit.
>
> One, DMARC incorporates SPF.  Having a strongly asserted SPF record
> suffices to achieve forgery protection.  And all my domains have them.
>
> :r! dig -t txt linuxmafia.com. +short
> "v=spf1 ip4:96.95.217.99 -all"
>
> Two, if you had _even_ actually checked _marc.linuxmafia.com, you would
> have seen that the domain _does_ have a DMARC RR, that is deliberately
> non-compliant with the DMARC spec, because I consider DMARC a botched
> design, decline to participate, and declare publicly my
> non-participation.  Which you'd have noticed if you _actually_ looked.
>
> :r! dig -t txt _dmarc.linuxmafia.com. +short
> "DMARC: tragically misdesigned since 2012.  Check our SPF RR, instead."
>
> I deduce you are fibbing in claiming that you sent a (believable)
> forged e-mail purporting to be from rick at linuxmafia.com, because if your
> MTA _actually_ implemented DMARC, which requires implementing SPF, then
> your MTA would have refused the mail as forged.  (If you are not
> fibbing, the claim is incompetent.  Either way, not a good look.)
>
> To sum up, I conclude, therefore, that you are simply running an
> automated DMARC record checking script against many domains, and sending
> out automated messages _falsely_ claiming a (credible) mail forgery
> of those domains _solely_ if they don't return positive from your
> automated DNS-checking script.
>
> You are, in brief, _not_ acting like a genuine security researcher.
> You are just another grifter running scripts, making false claims, and
> wanting money.
>
> You should be ashamed of yourself.  Get a real job.
>
> And, please go away.
>
>

----- End forwarded message -----