Yahoo and their mail filters..

Jo Rhett jrhett at netconsonance.com
Wed Mar 25 01:22:45 CDT 2009


> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com>  
> wrote:
>> The problem is... you aren't doing the work.  You aren't stopping the
>> offenders.  That's the goal.  Automation should be a tool to help  
>> you do the
>> job better, not avoid doing the job at all.

On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> And yes indeed, its a way for us to automate termination of spammers,
> and to discover other patterns (in signup methods / spam content etc)
> that we can use to update our filters.

That's a great theory.  Would you be willing to post an update to this  
list if and when your technology and automation actually get to the  
point of actually shutting down a spammer?

> There's a whole lot of maawg best practices (some work in progress, on
> outbound abuse / webmail abuse) that deal with these issues.

No, see, that's the problem.  Best Practices don't deal with abuse  
reports.  Humans deal with abuse reports.  You can collect and sort  
and collate your spam reports all day.  What about the part where a  
human looks at the report, confirms that it is spam, and terminates  
the customer?  You've got to do that.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness







More information about the NANOG mailing list