[40579] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Affects of the balkanization of mail blacklisting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Rothschild)
Tue Aug 14 02:18:43 2001
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 02:18:04 -0400
From: Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010814021803.A8878@og.latency.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.1010814002325.1785c-100000@sunny.netside.net>; from mitch@netside.net on Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 01:24:16AM -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0108132325000.9326-100000@greeves.mfn.org>; from measl@mfn.org on Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 11:33:36PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 11:33:36PM -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
> The SPAM problem goes up and down to be sure, but you know what?
> PROCMAIL is your friend. All you need to look for are the basics
> (ADV, Make Money, etc) and you can instatly filter 90 percent of
> this trash into the bitbucket.
Please do share your operational experiences with this, with respect
to effectiveness, scalability, etc. Sounds like a shocking revelation
-- who needs elaborate DNS or eBGP multihop-based blackhole lists,
when we can catch 90% of all spam known to man using procmail and a
simple subject regex!@?!
> At work (not mfn.org), I get several orders of magnitude more mail
> (usually obnoxious at that) from the "gentle anti-spammers" than the
> poor "victims" get themselves!
Have you tried unsubscribing yourself from the cypherpunks and spam-l
lists?
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 01:24:16AM -0400, Mitch Halmu wrote:
> Guilty of what, Vivien? You are accusing me of being a spammer?
While you're not a spammer, you're consciously providing spammers with
an invaluable tool: an open SMTP relay to abuse freely.
> NetSide's customers were fully informed of our stance published on a
> web site dedicated to the problem, most agreed, and those that chose
> to stay and endure the year-long MAPS blockade obviously like their
> communications uncensored, and truly appreciate being able to
> transparently use their accounts from elsewhere (i.e., from the
> office).
Ahhh yes, <http://www.dotcomeon.com/> isn't the least bit biased or
factually inaccurate, right? And secure tunneling, SMTP
authentication, and IMAP/POP-before-SMTP are hard; let's go shopping.
> I dare to be as bold as to imply that their agenda is akin to
> extracting "protection" money from ISPs. Do you really expect them
> to blackhole some of their paying "customers"?
Yes. MAPS is (and has been for as long as I can recall) a reputable
organization under very close public scrutiny. If they did something
this shady, surely someone would raise a stink.
> I am fighting his little MAPS charity based strictly on the belief
> that no private party has the right to appoint themselves as
> communications censors [...]
So, if you're so opposed to the MAPS-maintained blackholes, what are
you using to protect your massive dialup customer base from spam?
-adam
