On Mar 28, 2006, at 9:08 AM, Dan Oetting wrote:
No one is forced to use any DNS block list. Therefor, any harmful
effects of the DNSBL can only be because they are the best
alternative currently available. The response I would prefer to see
is the building of a better block list system to address any
shortcomings of the current DNSBL systems.
May I add, some block-lists require contacts from the subscribers.
This view of improving upon the block-list is shared by Trend
Micro. : )
One particular issue brought up in the draft is that the current
block lists don't adequately deal with bot-nets.
Bot-nets are affected by the DUL lists, which for some block-lists,
involves the cooperation of the ISPs and are not the product of
guesswork. Some ISPs however do not do a good job of keeping track
of their own address space. These issues necessitates a staff of
investigators. In areas where there is good ISP cooperation, the
related problems are much fewer.
If the block list could respond fast enough, each individual bot
could be blocked before it could deliver a substantial amount of
spam. And if used in conjunction with grey listing the entire spam
run could be stopped without inducing collateral damage.
Alas, some are also dribbling spam through the provider's servers.
There are strategies for dealing with this, but this continues to be
work-in-progress. The best success seems to be directing affected
accounts to a free system scrubbing service and port 25 blocking. : )
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg