On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 01:44:09PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
...at the cost of dropping legitimate traffic. the thing is, the set of
valid senders for you and the set of valid senders for everyone at cisco
is very different, and the latter set is much fuzzier. and those
reputation services won't take responsibility for the mail that you lose
by trusting them, nor are they accountable to the senders either.
this is not a way to make the network more robust.
Robust for what? Spammers? The simple fact of the matter is that the
alternative is to just shut down port 25 given the growth in both volume
and complexity to filter. That ain't robust either. Dealing with false
positives is the cost of doing business on the internet these days. Welcome
to reality.
http://fm.vix.com/internet/security/superbugs.html
--gregbo
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf