Before everyone continues to get frealy and insulting, please actually
think before you respond. Some idea are a little raw and I throw them
out to inspire creative thinking to come up with useful ideas. It's
about innovation.
Having said that - any information that produces a statistical
difference between spam and ham is work looking at.
We are already doing sender callback tests agains the senders email
address. So the idea of doing a little active testing against the
sending host is hardly a radical idea.
I don't think anyone would disagree that a host that has port 465 open
is more likely not to be a spammer.
We are also running blacklist tests against the host IP and I am doing
DNS lookups for the nameservers of the class C range of the revers DNS
to get a fingerprint about who is hosting the potential spammer.
So - the more general question is - are there tests that we can do on
the connecting host that would provide useful information to determin if
they are a spammer or not a spammer. In this case I don't so much see an
opportunity to identify spam as I do to identify ham. So - responses
like "you'll be blocking me if you do that" are not relevant to this idea.
>
>
> --On March 6, 2005 16:29:39 +0000 Matt Fretwell <mattf@???>
> wrote:
>
>
> That's ridiculous. Why would an SMTP server that's trying to send me
> mail object that I try to make a TCP connection to it. I already do
> ident callouts to the sending host. Surely its completely fair to make
> a callout to a sending host as frequently as it tries to send mail to me.
>
> It looks to me like the list is playing the game of trying to find the
> most spurious objections to Marc's proposals that it can - again.
>
>
> As are most of the methods that we use to prevent spam. Its an arms race.
>
--
Marc Perkel - marc@???
Spam Filter: http://www.junkemailfilter.com
My Blog: http://marc.perkel.com
My Religion: http://www.churchofreality.org
~ "If it's real - we believe in it!" ~
