Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0
2007-03-03 16:44:45
At 2:57 PM -0600 3/3/07, Al Iverson wrote:
On 3/3/07, Bill Cole <asrg3(_at_)billmail(_dot_)scconsult(_dot_)com> wrote:
At 1:07 PM -0600 3/3/07, Al Iverson wrote:
With a blacklisting, I get a bounce back and can find somebody to
argue with. With the common method of implementing a content filter,
my mail is quietly eaten and I get no information back regarding the
failure to deliver the mail to end recipient. This is worse than IP
blacklisting; less transparent; less obvious; less opportunity for
feedback and investigative recourse.
That's not an uncommon way of deploying content filters, but it is a
diminishing model.
Do you have any data to support that it's a diminishing model, or on
what % of spam is content rejected with a bounce?
All I have is anecdotal evidence, i.e. I know of sites that have
switched from discard/quarantine/asynch bounce approaches to
synchronous filtering at DATA time and rejecting then, and I know of
none that have switched in the other direction. In addition, I can
see the fact that user pressure has gotten before-queue approaches
(now including Milter) into Postfix despite the publicly expressed
misgivings of Wietse Venema about failure modes. I also can see that
if one goes looking for cookbooks on how to put together a mail
system that deals with spam, the answers today mostly are synchronous
DATA-time filters, not after-queue approaches.
I agree that some work this way (and I like the change), but I look at
many thousands of bounces a day, and it's still exceedingly rare.
There are always sampling issues. I don't think my sample is
inherently any more valid than yours, but
Imagine a world where you have 2 classes of mail receiving site: some
have filters set up and administered cluelessly and others have
filters set up and administered by someone clueful enough to
understand the two simple ideas that one should never trust the
purported sender on mail that is deemed malicious and that one should
avoid blackholing mail. Would you expect to see those classes
bouncing the mail that you are responsible for at the same rates?
There area a lot of Barracuda-like things in the world, who accept the
mail before doing anything else, and their only chance to send a
bounce (in how they're implemented currently), is after the fact,
which has its own obvious set of problems.
And there are a lot of Mirapoint boxes, and Sendmail and Postfix
installations pumping mail through SA at DATA time.
People doing stupid things (like being a Barracuda customer) are
going to be more obvious problematic and more difficult to deal with.
--
Bill Cole
bill(_at_)scconsult(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
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, Stephanie Erin Daugherty
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0, gep2
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0, Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0, Al Iverson
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0, Bill Cole
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0, Al Iverson
- Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0,
Bill Cole <=
[Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0, Bill Cole
Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0, Martin Hannigan
Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0, Dan Oetting
Re: [Asrg] Re: Asrg Digest, DNSBL BCP v.2.0, gep2
|
|
|