[88888] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: anybody here from verizon's e-mail department?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Maimon)
Wed Feb 22 11:38:28 2006
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:35:06 -0500
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
To: Dave Pooser <dave.nanog@alfordmedia.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <C021EAB8.91B19%dave.nanog@alfordmedia.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Dave Pooser wrote:
>>Which probably means Paul is blocking whatever server Verizon is using
>
> for its
>
>>sender verification
>
>
> Something I've seen before is a lot of mail servers will wait 10-45 seconds
> before presenting an SMTP prompt to remote hosts; spambots typically won't
> wait that long and give up. But since Verizon's sender verification (as of a
> couple months ago; haven't checked recently) times out after 30 seconds,
> that technique can have the side effect of making Verizon customers
> unreachable.
What about sender verification of validity discourages spammers?
The only reason it works is that they are too lazy to actualy use some
random VALID forged return-path.
I for one would not like to force spammers to start using valid
return-paths. I dont need that blowback load. That would affect my
ability to read NANOG, hence its on-topicness.
IOW why isnt this technique (not pionered by verizon, afaik the
milter-sender was first I saw of it) short sighted and dangerous in the
long run?
And yes, put this together with sender-id/domainkeys/spf whathaveyou and
then its valuable. However thats not the world we live in now.
Joe
