[122673] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Spamhaus...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rich Kulawiec)
Fri Feb 19 07:12:59 2010
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:12:27 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4B7D0D7D.33E4.0097.0@globalstar.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 09:50:59AM -0800, Crist Clark wrote:
> And I want to know how they figured out we had a Barracuda.
It's not that hard, much of the time -- they tend to make
themselves visible via their poor behavior.
As to Spamhaus policy re appliances in general, their terms are on their
web site and while you or I or anyone else may not agree with or like
their terms, it *is* their service to offer on the terms that they wish.
And given that the Zen DNSBL is far-and-away the highest quality DNSBL
available, it's probably worth paying for if one finds oneself in a
situation where its use is indicated.
An easy way around this is not to use an appliance: it's a straightforward
exercise for any competent postmaster to build anti-spam defenses that
vastly outperform [1] any appliance in an afternoon.
Finally, this discussion should really be on spam-l, not nanog.
---Rsk
[1] Where performance is measure in terms of acquisition cost, maintenance
cost, FP, FN, bandwidth, memory, CPU, resistance to attack, scalability, etc.
