-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Andriy G. Tereshchenko wrote:
| [Daniel Taylor]
|
|>As I pointed out, a formal reputation system is not necessary
|>to catch fly-by-nights. New domains will usually be suspect,
|>just as people are reluctant to do critical business with
|>companies that are "too new", and new domains with overly permissive
|
|
| This is really nice system to keep current monopolies.
| No way for start-ups to create new business.
| Increased entry barrier.
| Additional ways to kick out new competitors by blacklisting them.
|
| For example I know restrictive reputation service that require a fine
(read bribe) to be paid to remove entire (up to /19)
| netblock from blacklist.
| www.sorbs.net
| Quote:
|
|> If you are part of a wider netblock that is blocked you are not
|>required to pay the SORBS 'fine' as the entry was not generated because
|>of your actions, however your netblock will not be removed until your
|>upstream removes the spammers.
|
|
| Somebody will decide that companies you have to perform bussiness with.
| Welcome to world of freedom.
I do not believe it will come to that, simply because
I would not subscribe to a negative reputation service.
I already don't use DNSBL's because I don't trust them enough.
I already stated that "it's new to me" is a good enough indicator.
Greylisting isn't without problems, but it does work.
People are taking advantage of the current system precisely
because it is so wild and woolly that I can claim to be IBM sending
e-mail from random-cable-modem.example.net and have your mail server
believe me!
- --
Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc.
dtaylor(_at_)vocalabs(_dot_)com http://www.vocalabs.com/
(952)941-6580x203
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBAVxz8/QSptFdBtURAkHrAJ9Hm1UyZK8L6fIkn8cDBrfR0/wbGACdEBv6
Cu0B5yFMf8YqezxFa6+PzFw=
=e2/J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----