I would tend to agree with the assumption that about 80% of the
email traffic is spam given I just reset counters about 24 hours ago on
my mail servers and about 40% has been flagged spam but most of the mail
is mailing list traffic. Just looking at my inbox (mail not to the
mailing lists I'm subscribed to) atleast 80% if not 90% is spam.
The problem I see with accreditation is how much weight it will
hold; much like any certification program available. If there is no
weight given to it than what merit should it be given. As others had
mentioned Habeas, I've been using the SWE mark in my outgoing emails for
some months and it's only been of late that I've seen a rise of spammers
using it illegally and getting through. Prior to this attack I hadn't
seen any problems nor have I experienced any problems with my mail being
delivered.
I treat everything coming into my network as guilty until proven
otherwise and haven't had any problems. I think that unfortunately that
is the stance that has to be taken however to curb the digital pollution
that I think in most ways is worse than the smog problems in major
metros.
Regards,
Jeremy
On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 10:13:28AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I believe it's high time for assuming "negative
accreditation" and asking questions later.
At this point internet email appears to be about 80% spam.
I get about 1000 spam a day and about 200 legit emails
of which perhaps 40 are sent directly to me rather than
via mailing lists.
The meaning I am attempting to attach to accreditation
is that it is a statement provided by a third party.
But I would ceetainly accept that we need to change the
equation, assume all email guilty until proven innocent.
Phill