North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:13:52 MDT, Sean Figgins said: > And, is it really a burden if you SEND me an email to validate yourself? If it > IS such a burden, then I invite you not to send email to start with, especially > not to me. That would be all fine and good - if I was being asked to validate mail that I actually sent to you. I've seen very few true positives for this, compared to two *large* classes of false positives: 1) I'm being asked to verify my address because some malware found my address on a hard drive and stuck it in the From: field. I'm sorry, but if you're asking me to verify that, it *is* a burden - you are admittedly *starting off* assuming that it's bad and *needs* some sort of verification. So by definition, you're imposing on people to validate that they're real. 2) The rest of the time, I'm being asked to verify myself because I posted to a mailing list, and some idiot failed to whitelist the list address. Homework question: Does this method scale? What would happen to your inbox if *everybody* on this list did this sort of thing? (Bonus points for figuring out what happens when two people who *both* use this scheme try to exchange email. Hint - my system didn't recognize your C/R format, and concluded it was an e-mail addressed to me. What happens next?) > (Please respond only through the list) This is NANOG. If you wish to hijack the semantics of my REPLY button, feel free to actually include a Reply-To: field that expresses the semantics that you desire.