[122703] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Spamhaus...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Fri Feb 19 22:53:21 2010
In-Reply-To: <m2sk8w4qbj.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:52:23 -0500
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>> Reject gooooood, bounce baaaaaaad. [1]
>> Whine all you want about backscatter but until you propose a
>> comprehensive solution that's still reasonably compatible with RFC
>> 2821's section 3.7 you're just talking trash.
>
> no, rich is talking operation pragmatics. =A0more and more these years,
> rfcs are where the rubber meets the sky.
>
> but if you really like backscatter, i think i can find a few megabytes a
> day for you. =A0no problem.
Randy,
Feel free to bounce as much spam forged with my return address as you
like, so long as you first follow at least the bounce suppression
criteria I do:
No bounce if the message claimed to be from a mailing list.
No bounce if the spam scored higher than 8 in spamassassin
No bounce if the server which you received the spam from doesn't match
my domain's published SPF records evaluated as if "~all" and "?all"
are "-all"
I figure I can handle the additional -zero- messages... And I can
manage it without mysteriously dropping false-positives off into the
ether.
I agree backscatter is a nasty problem but as solutions go, "reject
gooooood, bounce baaaaaaad" sucks.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--=20
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
