Security of DNSBL spam block systems

Wed Jul 24 11:56:33 UTC 2002

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 10:20:58PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
> 
> At 2:29 AM -0400 2002/07/23, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
> 
> >  IMHO Even the really large DNSBL's are barely used -- I think
> >  (much) less than 5% of total human mail recipients are behind
> >  a mailserver that uses one...
> 
> 	Not true.  There are plenty of large sites that use them (e.g., 
> AOL), and many sites use them to help ensure that they themselves 
> don't get added to the black lists.
> 

Is true.. those "large sites" still account for an infinitely small percentage
of the net. 

> 	IMO, there is a serious risk of having DNSBL servers attacked and 
> used as a DoS.

Yes, there is a risk but the exposure is negligble if it does occur. I'm
all for anti-spam measures but unless they're universally adopted and the
world governments start putting spammers out of business, these anti-spam
blacklists are more of an annoyance  operated by a radical fringe of the
net. 

I get 500-600 pieces of spam a day, and there is nothing I can do about it.

This topic has also been discussed to death before, the potential for a
DoS atatck is patently obvious to everyone.

[snipped]

(I also trimmed the Cc list)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 185 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20020724/aaa0e91c/attachment.sig>