[79369] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: botted hosts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Apr 4 17:09:37 2005
To: John Dupuy <jdupuy-list@socket.net>
Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:45:01 CDT."
<6.0.3.0.2.20050404154224.04697ff0@mail.socket.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 17:09:09 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1112648948_4475P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:45:01 CDT, John Dupuy said:
> MODEL A: ISPs filter at the source; spam is reduced
> MODEL B: ISPs filter incoming mail traffic; spam is reduced.
> ISP's increase the effectiveness of blacklists and locating dynamic
> Which model really provides us with the best of both worlds: less spam yet
> more freedom to innovate? I would say model A does.
>
> However, I am not convinced of this. Please pick apart my models..
Obviously, the filtering has to be done at least at one end. And although it
would be nice if I lived in a world where the ISP originating the mail was
filtering it, I don't live there.
So unless you have a *realistic* proposal to make all the spam-haven ISPs
find religion, see the light, and oust their spammers *without* the "do it or
be blocked everyplace" (your plan B), it's not going to happen in our lifetime...
--==_Exmh_1112648948_4475P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFCUaz0cC3lWbTT17ARAji1AKCJ67h3Ws/4BlPVln8Add8JaS7+WQCgnSr5
zlAUxL0I2LoULpi5dsIsj+8=
=zbXt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1112648948_4475P--
