At 04:05 PM 8/13/2003, Jason Steiner wrote:
"Yakov Shafranovich" <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
> At 12:48 PM 8/12/2003, Jason Steiner wrote:
> >"Yakov Shafranovich" <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
...............
> Within the consent framework relying on a single source of information
is not
> a good thing. The best thing is using multiple sources of information
and then
> letting the consent system decide what do with it.
Best from a convenience standpoint, certainly. But given limited resources
for handling mail and nearly unlimited resources for sending it (via
millions of
unsecured proxies and worm-ridden machines) it's not best from a performance
standpoint.
A perfectly convenient system mailbombed to a standstill is no longer a
perfectly
convenient system. You have to strike a balance between convenience and
efficiency.
Correct, the mail administrator would be left to decide that balance by
choosing which systems to use, how the consent system is configured, etc. A
consent system can use a single DNSRBL and SpamAssasin, just as well as
multiple DNSRBLs. All of these decisions would be left up to the
implementors and administrators. I am not suggesting that a consent system
should use ALL available sources, just more then one. Two DNSRBLs or a
DNSRBL combined with a filter might be better than relying on SPEWS.org or
some other DNSRBL as a sole source of information. Decisions on spam should
not be based on a single source alone.
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg