karl and paul, expostulating

Thu Feb 20 16:17:22 UTC 1997

On 19 Feb 1997 21:55:30 -0800, you wrote:

>>>>>> "KD" == Karl Denninger <karl at Mcs.Net> writes:
>
>  KD> or a 421 error, which keeps the spam at the source (loading the
>  KD> spammers mailserver -- a GOOD thing!)
>
>Are you joking?  There's not a spammer alive that uses sendmail or
>something that would similiarly requeue on temporary failure.
>
>  KD> Much more elegant, in my opinion.
>
>Assuming that 'sendspam' would actually maintain a queue.  
>
>Paul's solution has its own elegance: raising the price for allowing
>antisocial behavior from bounced email to partial loss of
>connectivity.  But like Paul said, raising the stakes like that just
>invites someone to try and one up him.

What's so elegant about that if a spammer with elementary knowledge
about SMTP and DNS can easily bounce his stuff off of any of the
thousands of unsuspecting hosts and/or use unsuspecting forwarding
name servers in the slave mode?

>Daniel Simms                    There is more than one way to burn a book. 

Dima