North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: OPERATIONAL Question - Spamblock protocol
On Wed, Nov 19, 1997 at 12:48:27PM -0600, Jeremy Porter wrote: > >The intent here is to do the following: > > > >1) Alert the real sender if we can reasonably reach the person. > >2) Alert the relay owner if they were relayed through without knowing > > about it (and pressure them to fix it - pronto!) > >3) If we can't do either right away, toss the bounce on the floor > > on the premise that its better to give up than keep screwing around > > and clog up the pipeline. > > > >What do the rest of you here think? Option (1) doesn't look very sound; the > >fight right now is between (2) and (3). > > In my opinion, if you fix the relay problem to about 75%, the rest of the > relays will get fixed or die, due to the spam volume, then one you solve > the relaying problem, someone has to transmit all the messages themselves, > which greatly lengths the time to detect them, and makes the cost of spamming > go up. (It also allows IP based blocking to work better.) Hmmm.. this seems to argue for the last approach - try to send the bounce to the FROM line at the relay, and failing that, send the bounce instead to {abuse|postmaster}@relay.site. The only reason I don't want to bypass the user ENTIRELY is that if the spamfilter gets someone who is legitimate (due to their being in the wrong place, etc) I want there to be a reasonable chance that they'll get notified by us that their mail was blocked and they need to talk to someone about it (they may be legitimately trying to reach a customer of ours). -- -- Karl Denninger ([email protected])| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
|