See interleaved comments
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:40:23 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
For most users, the need is to stop the spam without blocking legitimate
mail from the same host. This is what drives the concept of filtering
over using a DNSBL.
Collateral damage is an issue.
Collateral damage is the OBJECTIVE. It is the only thing
that gains the attention of the abuse-enablers. This is proven
beyond doubt.
Another issue is the fact that blocking
is not communicated to the sender in many cases but the messages are
swallowed silently.
That is an RFC violation.
As for community-based systems, rule of the mob is not always good.
No 'mob' is involved, but users who do not agree to have their
systems polluted. Procedures are clear and public in the document I
drafted.
I am not saying this approach is bad, rather it has issues that must be
worked out. If all of these issues are taken into account, such system
may very well do a lot of good.
For example, if there are standards for communications among ISPs and
networks for both blocking and abuse reporting,
There is ia standard; it is in the RFC pertaining to mandatory role
accounts.
Jeffrey Race
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg