North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Affects of the balkanization of mail blacklisting
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 11:33:36PM -0500, [email protected] wrote: > The SPAM problem goes up and down to be sure, but you know what? > PROCMAIL is your friend. All you need to look for are the basics > (ADV, Make Money, etc) and you can instatly filter 90 percent of > this trash into the bitbucket. Please do share your operational experiences with this, with respect to effectiveness, scalability, etc. Sounds like a shocking revelation -- who needs elaborate DNS or eBGP multihop-based blackhole lists, when we can catch 90% of all spam known to man using procmail and a simple subject [email protected]?! > At work (not mfn.org), I get several orders of magnitude more mail > (usually obnoxious at that) from the "gentle anti-spammers" than the > poor "victims" get themselves! Have you tried unsubscribing yourself from the cypherpunks and spam-l lists? On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 01:24:16AM -0400, Mitch Halmu wrote: > Guilty of what, Vivien? You are accusing me of being a spammer? While you're not a spammer, you're consciously providing spammers with an invaluable tool: an open SMTP relay to abuse freely. > NetSide's customers were fully informed of our stance published on a > web site dedicated to the problem, most agreed, and those that chose > to stay and endure the year-long MAPS blockade obviously like their > communications uncensored, and truly appreciate being able to > transparently use their accounts from elsewhere (i.e., from the > office). Ahhh yes, <http://www.dotcomeon.com/> isn't the least bit biased or factually inaccurate, right? And secure tunneling, SMTP authentication, and IMAP/POP-before-SMTP are hard; let's go shopping. > I dare to be as bold as to imply that their agenda is akin to > extracting "protection" money from ISPs. Do you really expect them > to blackhole some of their paying "customers"? Yes. MAPS is (and has been for as long as I can recall) a reputable organization under very close public scrutiny. If they did something this shady, surely someone would raise a stink. > I am fighting his little MAPS charity based strictly on the belief > that no private party has the right to appoint themselves as > communications censors [...] So, if you're so opposed to the MAPS-maintained blackholes, what are you using to protect your massive dialup customer base from spam? -adam
|