Alessandro Vesely wrote:
I apologize if that has been answered already
No "answer", but "related", some days ago Daryl posted
lots of interesting things GMail might do with a FAIL:
| I'm utterly amazed that no one has yet to mention the
| value in getting the DATA of a spam.
| If you, however you wish, generate signatures of spam
| originating from a bunch of dynamic IPs and then use
| those signatures against mail received from IPs that
| you're not sure if they're dynamic or not you can easily
| identify spam (coming from the not known to be dynamic
| IPs) that you've already seen copies of from dynamic
| IP'd hosts. You would not be able to do this if you
| didn't accept the DATA from the dynamic hosts.
| It's free, shall I say, DATA, for their anti-spam
| systems. If they can afford the bandwidth (and I have
| no reason to believe that they can't) then why not?
| Besides, there has been no evidence presented that says
| that they don't, after accepting the same spam from the
| same host a bunch of times, start ignoring such hosts
| for some period of time.
Thinking about this, GMail could roll their own SURBL with
the FAILing and other DATA. The real SURBL has some delay,
for one of their sources (spamcop) spam has to be reported,
identified spam-URIs have to arrive at SURBL, where they
are counted and double-checked against a SURBL white list,
verified spam-URIs are added to SURBL, huge users need to
rsync SURBL (e.g. four times per hour), and the overall
processing might add up to more than a hour.
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription:
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com