SORBS on autopilot?

Brian Keefer chort at smtps.net
Wed Jan 13 11:14:22 CST 2010


On Jan 12, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:48:31AM -0800, Brian Keefer wrote:
>> I wouldn't say that necessarily accurate.  I could be considered
>> part of the "anti-spam crowd", seeing as that's my line of work.
> 
>> I think DULs are a really dumb way to block spam.  Making a binary
>> decision off of information that's wrong as often as it's right it's
>> a great way to create collateral damage and just generally cause more
>> headaches for everyone.  
> 
> I've done a little bit of work in the anti-spam area as well (starting
> around 1983) and I can tell you that your viewpoint about DULs is
> roughly half a decade out of date. 

Well not to drag this into a meta-thread, but you're not the only one with experience.  I've been doing this for well over a decade too, so have a great many of my colleagues, not only at my employer, but at competing companies.  I can tell you that your view on this is far from universal.

Parties who believe blanket blocking of IP space (sounds very 1999 to me, I was there, I did that stuff) is the best thing ever tend to not have access to high-quality reputation services and/or content-based analysis.  See Joel Snyder's comments.  BTW I'm not talking about anything Open Source.

There are lots of ways to block a lot of spam, but most of the perceived "low-cost" ways block a non-trivial amount of wanted mail.  Call it whatever you like, the fact remains that most organizations that value e-mail as a communication medium do care about missing those wanted messages.  If it was as simple as blocking dynamic IP pools and spammy .TLDs, organizations would be doing that instead of paying $$$ for sophisticated services & software.

That's the last I'll say on blanketing vs. intelligent blocking for this thread.

PS We agree on quite a few subjects, just not this one.

--
bk



More information about the NANOG mailing list