Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0
2007-03-03 10:18:57
gep2(_at_)terabites(_dot_)com wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:43:58 -0600
"Al Iverson" <aliversonchicagolists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 3/2/07, gep2(_at_)terabites(_dot_)com <gep2(_at_)terabites(_dot_)com> wrote:
As you know, in a recent thread I commented on what a
LOUSY solution IP-address-based blacklists are, in
general.
Part of the problem is that it is a VERY blunt instrument,
especially for companies which operate a large network
from behind a NAT router.
Take blacklists out of the equation, and it doesn't solve your problem.
The key problem is that an ENTIRE COMPANY can be put out of business for
DAYS by ONE IP address getting blocked, and as the company gets more
dependent on E-mail and gets more computers, the statistical likelihood
that some day one of them will get infected gets higher and higher.
Yeah, sucks. Too bad that's how spam filtering works. Again, railing
against blacklists doesn't fix it. The death of every blacklist doesn't
fix it. You want a significant change in spam filtering methodology?
There are VC firms waiting to hand out money. Go get some, hire some
smart guys, and build that better mousetrap.
IP-based blocking is here to stay, whether or not any of us like it. All
of the top ten ISPs/webmail providers employ some form of it, as well as
many thousands of ISPs beyond the top ten. None of this is specific to
DNSBLs or germane for a DNSBL BCP.
Waging war *here* against the blunt methodology of IP address-based
blocking is misguided, and off topic. This is telling people who want to
shape *an existing process* that the foundation of the process (used by
others, whom they don't control) is flawed, even though it's already
used as a common practice in many thousands of situations daily.
> Absolutely. It is SUCH a blunt instrument that I firmly believe it is
> TECHNICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE for any intelligent person to propose basing
> almost any kind of spam control scheme upon it.
At this point I think it's safe to say that your opinion has been noted.
Do you have anything *else* to contribute, besides telling us that
IP-based blocking sucks because some guy's office NAT IP was blacklisted
once and it practically slowed down their email to some domains
for...hours? If so, I'm interested. Otherwise it's time to fire up the
kill file, to prevent from getting sucked further into an argument with
a troll. Nothing personal, but this is a distraction-- somebody with a
huge chip on their shoulder to the point of religious fervor is
difficult to take seriously. If you feel so strongly about it that you
need to shake us to get our attention by using CAPS and writing LONG
POSTS, then YOU SHOULD GO OUTSIDE and HUG A PUPPY instead of ARGUING
WITH US. IT'S JUST EMAIL.
Regards,
Al Iverson
--
Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverabilty, see http://www.aliverson.com
Message copyright 2007 by Al Iverson. For posts to SPAM-L, permission
is granted only to this lists's owners to redistribute to their sub-
scribers and to archive this message on site(s) under their control.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0, (continued)
Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0, Daniel Feenberg
Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0, der Mouse
Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0, Seth Breidbart
Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0, Al Iverson
Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0, Stephanie Erin Daugherty
Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0, gep2
|
|
|