ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

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