[79377] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: botted hosts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Mon Apr 4 23:18:54 2005
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 03:16:29 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
In-reply-to: <200504042109.j34L99kV010595@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: John Dupuy <jdupuy-list@socket.net>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>,
Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> 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.
where ISP could be, for instance, cable-modem-provider-C that forces their
customers through their relays and would filter outbound email?
>
> 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
FAUSP ?
