[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fwd: Meta-issue: recent spam surge]
From: |
Derrick Norris |
Subject: |
Re: [Fwd: Meta-issue: recent spam surge] |
Date: |
Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:29:43 -0400 |
On Wednesday 24 October 2001 01:04 pm, Greg A. Woods wrote:
<snip>
> ORBZ and ORDB both provide verifiable, mechanical only, listings of
> proven open relays. Both have quite reasonable update times and are
> easy to get de-listed from once you've fixed your mailer. Osirusoft's
> list is somewhat more comprehensive, but can be tuned by using the value
> of the A RR returned; and they are the only list actively maintaining
> ranges of dialup and other dynamically addressed ports which are never
> sources of legitimate authorised SMTP connections.
My main box at home runs FreeBSD and is configured to use local sendmail for
outgoing because some of the other lists I subscribe to used to bounce my
messages due to brain-damaged ISP not having reverse DNS for their
mailservers, while reverse DNS on their dialup and DSL accounts works. This
makes me a "dynamically addressed port" which _is_ a source of "legitimate
authorised SMTP connections." Or so I would think, since those lists stopped
bouncing my messages after I switched to my own sendmail.
I have always thought that blacklisting ISP dialup etc. ports was a bad idea
-- those not running Windows are often prevented from using all the services
their OS provides due to attempts to block spam. I am responsible for
disposing of the junk snail mail I receive and I consider that more of a pain
than setting up filters on my BSD box and basically forgetting about it,
while the number of messages in my trash can each day tells me that external
spam-blocking attempts aren't working very well.
I personally would rather see a spam hit a list occasionally, rather than
have a legitimate user post bounced and followed up by a post asking why
which starts a thread about the whole thing again. That can be a worse hit
on signal-to-noise ratio than the spam itself.
Derrick
Re: [Fwd: Meta-issue: recent spam surge], Martin Hamilton, 2001/10/28