On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 10:46:51AM -0400, Jeffrey Wheat wrote:
[>I wrote:]
[rewrapped again]
> > This sounds like a recipe for losing mail. Whatever happened
> > to reliable mail delivery?
> There is always this risk. There is always the potential to lose a
> valid email. This is of course a catch twenty-two. What to do...Deliver
> all email and risk having customers move to competition because they
> claim to be spam free...Or take a chance of dropping a valid email here
> and there.
Erm, in what way is that a "catch-22". What I meant by "reliable mail
delivery" is, of course, that you don't drop something on the floor. That
the sending user gets a "your mail looked like spam" bounce. I mean, what
happens if that is the message that showed massive credit-card fraud on
my card. I'd be really very fucked off with you if you dropped the mail on
the floor.
> > It sounds like you basically want your own rules of netblocks
> > and dns-based blacklists. There isn't really any other way.
> This isn't about wanting or using dns-based lists or custom
> netblock filters as much as it is about trying to reduce the ways
> that spammers exploit our mail servers. By starting there, we can
Can you explain what you mean here. This doesn't seem to follow from
what you said above. If you have exploitable servers, then perhaps you
should fix them. If you are suffering from lots of spam whose final
destination is your customers, then I'm claiming that you probably need
a custom solution for what you're attempting to do.
> begin to reduce the amount of spam. I personally think blacklisting
> an entire domain because of a few bad eggs is a bad thing.
Where did I say anything about blacklisting entire domains? I agree with
this. This is unrelated to what you say above. You sound rather confused.
MBM
--
Matthew Byng-Maddick <mbm@???> http://colondot.net/
