[47586] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Neals)
Mon May 6 19:42:29 2002
Message-ID: <473B1201E090D511AE5100D0B747A48703395795@yyzxch06.gt.ca>
From: Randy Neals <rneals@gt.ca>
To: "'Ralph Doncaster'" <ralph@istop.com>,
Scott Francis <darkuncle@darkuncle.net>
Cc: "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc@imach.com>, measl@mfn.org,
"Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 19:34:30 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
An example of challenge/response email authentication.
http://www.myprivacy.ca/
-R
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Doncaster [mailto:ralph@istop.com]
Sent: May 6, 2002 7:32 PM
To: Scott Francis
Cc: Forrest W. Christian; measl@mfn.org; Eric A. Hall; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
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
