bill at herrin.us
Sat Feb 20 03:52:23 UTC 2010
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>>> Reject gooooood, bounce baaaaaaad. 
>> Whine all you want about backscatter but until you propose a
>> comprehensive solution that's still reasonably compatible with RFC
>> 2821's section 3.7 you're just talking trash.
> no, rich is talking operation pragmatics. more and more these years,
> rfcs are where the rubber meets the sky.
> but if you really like backscatter, i think i can find a few megabytes a
> day for you. no problem.
Feel free to bounce as much spam forged with my return address as you
like, so long as you first follow at least the bounce suppression
criteria I do:
No bounce if the message claimed to be from a mailing list.
No bounce if the spam scored higher than 8 in spamassassin
No bounce if the server which you received the spam from doesn't match
my domain's published SPF records evaluated as if "~all" and "?all"
I figure I can handle the additional -zero- messages... And I can
manage it without mysteriously dropping false-positives off into the
I agree backscatter is a nasty problem but as solutions go, "reject
gooooood, bounce baaaaaaad" sucks.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the NANOG