I think that looking for a constant stream might be more effective. I doubt the bots are sophisticated enough to randomize sending patterns, though I could be wrong.
I still contend - off by default. Those with a clue can turn it on, those without a clue shouldn't and likely don't need to. On Thursday 23 March 2006 12:55 am, Darren L wrote: > So when you send out an email to 10 people about tonight's BBQ, it gets > marked as spam? Or thanking the attendees at a class for their > participation, spam again? > > Peak is WAY more than 5 / hour. When working on a project, I send out way > more than that. > > And you're also opening the door for a lot of additional management issues > which require more manpower. > > On 3/22/06, Shawn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's a thought.... > > > > How tough would it be to come up with some code/script or a system that > > monitors OUTGOING mail through Shaw's gateways (not their mail servers). > > Then, when an excessive amount of spam is identified from a single > > connection > > (maybe 5 in a minute?), block port 25 temporarily for that specific > > connection (a few minutes or hours maybe?). Or even go one step further > > and > > see if the connection is a home connection, or a business > > connection. Then > > outright block smtp for the home connections that are tagged this way - > > obviously they aren't taking precautions, but allow the business > > connections > > to go through. Afterall, a business DOES have to market itself, and it's > > messages while important to the business may be seen as spam by everyone > > else > > - but they've paid for this "priviledge" by going to the business line. > > Perhaps throttle the connection speeds for those business lines that send > > out > > excessive amounts of spam? Sending out 100, or even 1000 bulk messages > > every > > few days wouldn't be that bad, but every hour? that's abuse, and should > > be > > punished (slower connection speeds or block smtp maybe). > > > > Obviously implementing this idea would require some work, and possibly > > have > > other unforseen impacts. I'm not saying it's easy, or even a great idea, > > but > > perhaps one to promote discussion in the direction of a better fix, > > rather than trying variants of old fixes that don't work well. > > > > My thoughts. > > > > Shawn > > > > On Wednesday 22 March 2006 18:35, Andrew J. Kopciuch wrote: > > > On Wednesday 22 March 2006 17:10, Gustin Johnson wrote: > > > > Checking email generally implies a response or two, which does use > > > > SMTP. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > clug-talk mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca > > Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) > > **Please remove these lines when replying _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
