North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques

  • From: Sean Figgins
  • Date: Mon Oct 22 18:43:36 2007

Dave Pooser wrote:

I call BS. I ran sender-callout verification on my primary email server for
a while (before I became convinced it was mildly abusive, and stopped) and
typically blocked 2-3 spams per day. In fact, I had more FPs than legit spam
blocked by that method.

2-3 spams a day? That's really an amazing low number. You can call BS all you want. I'll stick to my numbers as they are what my reports were telling me. Is it possible that the email address in question was listed somewhere on the list that viruses used to send forged email more than other spammers? That's completely possible. Still, my results are what I observed when I went looking at the statistics over a 6 month period. I was actually looking for other statistics, the reduction in overall spam levels after implementing gray listing, which was the next 6 month's statistics.

Absolutely I am. If you're going to try to offload your spam filtering to
me, I want the process to cause you as much pain as possible (within ethical
limits, which is why I won't forward your email

It's OK, really, as I;m sure that your email address is only used once or twice total, so your validation of the email address really means nothing to the recipient. They get one spam message. If they get more, they just blacklist the address. It's what I do.

Sender callouts will verify addresses without requiring any action from the
end user. If you must [ab]use my resources to do your job, please have the
common decency to use my (abundant) hardware and software resources rather
than my (much more limited) wetware resources.

You have more information on this? I'd be more than happy to investigate another method myself that does not piss you off so much, as long as it provides the same level of isolating spam.

(Please respond only to the list)