[47583] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ralph Doncaster)
Mon May 6 19:32:16 2002
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 19:31:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>
To: Scott Francis <darkuncle@darkuncle.net>
Cc: "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc@imach.com>,
"measl@mfn.org" <measl@mfn.org>, "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <20020506231859.GE31322@darkuncle.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0205061928390.627-100000@cpu1693.adsl.bellglobal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Scott Francis wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:01:49PM -0600, forrestc@imach.com said:
> [snip]
> > Passing laws and putting on filters don't work. Depending on each mail
> > server admin to do the right thing doesn't work. We need to find
> > something else that will.
>
> I'm beginning to think that fighting the spam itself is futile. What we
> should perhaps be focusing on is removing access to whatever is being
> spamvertised (frequently a get-rich-quick website, porn site, diet site, etc.
> - but generally a website somewhere, that can have the plug pulled).
Actually, my analysis of spam seems to indicate authentication of remote
SMTP servers through a process similar to joining this list would remove
99+% of SPAM. i.e. the first email from a particular remote server that
is received, requires the sender to take some action (respond with a
password, click on a URL, etc.) before the mail gets through. One of
these days I hope to write the procmail rules to do it (if I don't find
someone that has done it already)
-Ralph
