[38035] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: ORBS (Re: Scanning)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (E.B. Dreger)
Sun May 27 13:40:03 2001
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 17:34:36 +0000 (GMT)
From: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F0922860E46B7@condor.mhsc.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0105271729160.26659-100000@www.everquick.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 10:24:57 -0700
> From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
>
> So, you aren't happy when I build a poisoned cake for spammers, you want
> me to use your specific recipe... even if mine works (better?). Tell me
Explain how yours works on the same level or better.
> how a MAPS-blocked system can relay spam.
Nobody claimed that it could. Tell me what percentage of open relays are
listed in MAPS.
MAPS does not probe like ORBS does. By its more conservative nature, much
more spam gets by MAPS than ORBS. Is this good? Is it bad? Judgement
call.
> Yes, I'll concede that your approach may work, albeit at higher HW cost
> than my approach.
Let's factor in the cost of wasted bandwidth when one gets hijacked, and
the cost of having an MX handle the extra spam traffic.
Eddy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc.
EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: (316) 794-8922
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com>
To: blacklist@brics.com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT
send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
