Please take this as being constructive.
I'm not out to prove a point with spam blocking, I'm out to just simply block spam and deliver good E-mail. When some idiot blasts legitimate mail from DUL space, the problem becomes mine to solve, and my customers expect for me to solve it, period. Same thing goes for businesses that don't have good practices concerning this stuff. I can definitely tell you that employees of large corporations such as GM and VW have employees in branch offices that purchase and install bulk-mail software on their desktop computers and send out E-mail that way. Again, this is my problem. Both of these things speak to the need that was described in Andy's post.
I don't think that the attitude that the problem is someone else's gets you very far in the business of offering spam and virus blocking as a service. While this attitude is quite popular with RBL administrators and the movement in general, it is increasingly unpopular with people like myself that have to deal with the shortcomings that result from this being used as a policy. I think that some other things like your unwillingness to allow for Outlook's omission of the To header in BADHEADERS, and the inability to turn off individual vulnerabilities with the exception of a couple are also reflections of the belief that it is the "other guy's problem", though not the only reason.
The bottom line is that the more that people that I rely on who go about things with this attitude, the more work it creates for me and the worse off my customers are as a result. I'm in the business of delivering good E-mail and blocking spam and viruses, but I'm not in the business of blocking stupidity if I can help it.
I do however understand that there are instances where practicality doesn't present an easy solution and that laying the blame on the stupid is an easy and obvious out. I'm sure that you would like to allow for much more flexibility/accuracy with your tests if allowed the time to develop them, so my only real concern is that one's stupidity doesn't affect your willingness to address or prioritize a problem.
That said, I do appreciate the effort here with this test, and as with anything it will evolve and become stronger and more accurate, but I just hope that you don't limit yourself from doing the right thing just because of a real-world condition that doesn't make sense to you.
Thanks,
Matt
So - if some dial-up/dynamic PC gets infected, that IP address will likely
be assigned to someone else who happens to connect tomorrow? Is your test
eliminating any "dial-up/dynamic" IPs, since by definition the infected/spam
workstation will change IPs?
But, by definition, those IPs are guaranteed to be dynamic -- and therefore shouldn't be sending E-mail directly, without the assistance of an MTA.
How do you account for businesses using Internet gateways, firewalls, NAT
routers etc where one IP address could feasible represent a large number of
different workstations?
If a business has infected computers, and the business allows those infected computers to send out viruses through the firewall on the same IP that outgoing legitimate E-mail goes on, they have serious problems. They would need to fix the problems, and request removal of their IP.
-- ===================================================== MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =====================================================
--- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
--- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
