Gotta love it, you *almost* qualifed as SPAM there Rich (according to Spamassassin).
;-) >> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME,PENIS_ENLARGE2 >version=2.20 On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 01:47:23PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribed to Cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > OK, I've had my lunch and I'm feeling more alert now. I am still not > convinced that open relays are anything but BAD (for me) and that > blocking them is anything but GOOD (for me). I'm not an ISP, so I don't > think I'm legally bound to be an open relay. If I get spam that has been > relayed off of server X, then I'm going to block all SMTP connections > from server X, if it's in my power to do so. If that means I block mail > from legitimate clients of server X, I can live with that. Those clients > should complain to server X's management, not to me. > > While I also like to filter on the content of the message, I operate > under the assumption that anything in the message header can be forged. > I've seen some pretty bogus message headers before. So I would not > feeling confident in relying on the IP address in the message header for > any kind of usable protection. > > Admittedly, both open-relay blocking and content-filtering are moving > targets. If enough people block mail from one open relay, the spammers > will move to another, and as soon as I start filtering on /BIGGER > PENIS/, I'll get spam for /BIGGER PEN1S/, but that doesn't mean that I > shouldn't continue to be vigilant, if occasionally draconian. > > -Rich > > > > Dean Anderson wrote: > > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Rich Lenihan wrote: > > > I'm probably being really dense this morning, but "whaaaaaat??????" > > > Please explain to me again why using RBLs to block spam is less > > > effective than not using filters at all or why using RBL's in > > > conjunction with content-based filtering isn't more effective than using > > > either alone. You may be right, but I'd like to understand why. > > > > Not all RBLs, just open relay RBLs. If you use Open relay rbls, then you > > are blocking based on the connection address. This is wrong. You should be > > filtering against the IP addresses in the headers of the message. If you > > filter this way, the relay used by the spam is irrelevant. It doesn't > > matter if the relay is open or closed. > > > > The only people the open relay rbls "help" are those who previously had no > > filters at all. Even then, they mostly just get a "feel good". Much the > > "blocked spam" is originated by the open relay people. > > > > Using RBL's (on the headers) in conjunction with content filters is a good > > thing. > > > > > > Send mail for the `bblisa' mailing list to `[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. > > Mail administrative requests to `[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. > -- Justin S. Peavey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Back Bay LISA" List Administrator http://www.bblisa.org --- Send mail for the `bblisa' mailing list to `[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. Mail administrative requests to `[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
