[65535] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: incorrect spam setups cause spool messes on forwarders
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Roesen)
Mon Dec 1 15:19:10 2003
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:18:21 +0100
From: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <E47BF908-2437-11D8-9DC9-0003939CCE42@rockynet.com>; from mike@rockynet.com on Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:52:28PM -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:52:28PM -0700, Michael Lewinski wrote:
> The idea is to "punish" spammers by filling up their queues, although
> honestly I don't know of any spammers who actually *have* queues. They
> just borrow other people's of course.
Correct. More and more, anti-spammers are annoying me more than
the spammers. Anti-spammers tend to "make my problem YOUR problem"
thinking. Be it mangled sender addresses (this "NOSPAM" nonsense),
be it 450 to suspected spam.
Antispanners seem to be very easy in accepting collateral damage
to the net.
Regards,
Daniel
