[49039] in North American Network Operators' Group
e-mail blacklists (was Re: SPEWS?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (J.D. Falk)
Thu Jun 20 22:15:14 2002
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:12:20 -0700
From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@cybernothing.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <00bd01c218c7$40d0f5f0$231a90d8@ntauthority>; from georger@getinfo.net on Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 09:58:57PM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 06/20/02, "Geo." <georger@getinfo.net> wrote:
> That was kinda my point. We need to stop this pushing and shoving back and
> forth and find solutions that work and don't depend on bending every ISP on
> the planet to conformity because that's never going to happen. The forcing
> approach reminds me of copy protection, lets force everyone to be good.
> Guess what, it's a big network and it's getting bigger and you'll never get
> everyone to conform. So I suggest we take a different road whether that be
> dynamic blocking as soon as a spamming starts or heuristic filters or
> whatever else we can come up with that works.
>
> Note, I'm not saying don't use spews, just realize it's a copy protection
> type of approach and will be of limited success for the same reasons.
Copy protection is a good comparison, and one which I haven't
seen before. However, dynamic blacklists will eventually fall
into the same trap; spammers will find ways around 'em. Static
or dynamic, you're still trying to apply a purely technical
solution to a social problem.
All that said, I do agree that dynamic lists are the obvious
next step; they'll probably buy us another six months to a
year. But spamcop's in specific is still based on spamcop user
complaints, and most of the spamcop user complaints I've seen
have been grossly mistargetted.
--
J.D. Falk "It's all vegan, except for
<jdfalk@cybernothing.org> the goat squeezings!"
-- rachel
