[47512] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bruce Campbell)
Sun May 5 08:14:45 2002
Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 14:14:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: Bruce Campbell <bc@vicious.dropbear.id.au>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20020504151938.Q56039-100000@workhorse.imach.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205051404141.22904-100000@x22.ripe.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
> Anyone who thinks that government can pass a law and this will go away is
> hopelessly naieve. The spammers will go overseas. Besides, if you look
The spammers already use non-US machines in various ways to disguise their
(still predominately) US origin.
> been reported to the razor. rbldns lists are effective only against the
> worst offenders, as the rest don't get reported until it is too late.
> and so on.
Hrm, I'm thinking that the focus is slightly off (ie, rejection doesn't
have to occur solely at the message delivery stage); assuming that you had
custom software, you could conceiveably get a real time feed of spam/open
relays/other criteria and periodically check your mail
that-you-have-received-but-not-yet-read against any new updates to further
get rid of more spam. If you've got a few million subscribers who would
be further annoyed at spam/your abuse desk in receiving spam, this would
possibly be productive.
> I think the only other methods I can think of are best described as some
> sort of "web of trust" type method. These are essentially whitelist
> systems. In order to send me mail you have to *do* something.
How long before mailing list exploders are forced to only accept
pgp-signed/encrypted mail from its subscribers, and re-pgp-sign/encrypt it
when sending to subscribers ?
--==--
Bruce.
