spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers

2004-07-24 08:51:35
We operate just like your home ISP and we also block port 25 and open it
upon request to administrators. They are warned and sign an agreement that
they are 100% responsible for securing their mail server and that they are
qualified to run a mail server. First instance of an issue either spam or
virus from their mail server they are shut off and are required to give us a
detailed report on how it happened and the detailed plan to maintain a
secure server in the future.

Second offense they are shut off and required to migrate and outsource their
mail to our server or leave the service. They can appeal to engineering the
second offense and that will be decided on a case by case basis. Third
offense there is no appeal. The offenses must be in a 2 year period.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arjen de Korte" <spf(_at_)de-korte(_dot_)org>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] SPF will solve spam and punish spammers


On Saturday 24 July 2004 16:52, John Keown wrote:

I agree thousand are running secure and compliant servers but millions
are
not adhering to the standards. Just look at the list of known open
relays
mail servers on the net in any major blacklist. These have been used by
spammers and yet they are still open relays.

Are these systems really open relays, or trojaned systems turned into a
spam
relay?

When I look at some major ISP's in the country where I live, in most cases
the
top 10 of IP's generating most traffic (according to
http://www.senderbase.org/) are cable modems or dialup accounts. In many
cases these systems crank out hundreds of thousands of messages each day.
A
lot can be said about the accuracy of SenderBase, but even if they are off
by
a factor of 100, that's still a huge amount of messages for a normal user.
I
just can't believe that all these systems are badly configured
mailservers,
although most of them are listed in 'list.dsbl.org'.

The real problem behind this is that many internet service providers don't
even bother to filter anything. All ports are wide open to anywhere on the
net. This could be solved quite easily by a default setting of port 25
closed
in- and outbound (except for the ISPs mailservers) and opening them on
demand
(via a web page or whatever). Your average Joe User with no desire to
operate
a mailserver (if he knows what it is) should not have access to these
ports
and will not be harmed if you close them for him. This will fit the vast
majority of users just fine (maybe 90% or more). It can be done right now,
the technology is there but many ISPs are unwilling to do so.

With spam now accounting for 80% of all email traffic we are fast
approaching email as a useless communication system.

Full ack. Something must be done. But before stepping to such drastic
actions
as putting additional requirements on running a mailserver, I think that
we
should first crack down on systems unknowingly running open relays.

Best regards,
Arjen
-- 
51 N 25' 05.1" - 05 E 29' 14.1"
Key fingerprint - 66 4E 03 2C 9D B5 CB 9B  7A FE 7E C1 EE 88 BC 57

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Send us money!  http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com