On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Scott Harney wrote: > On Saturday 14 June 2003 05:05 pm, Dustin Puryear wrote: > > I don't see what is so hard about relaying your mail through Cox. > > My only problem with it is that it's lazy and ultimately a non-solution. > What > I would be interested to see, as a customer, is statistics showing over time > the reduction of spam emanating from Cox's cable modem customer base before > and after initiating the block. Prove it works.
I agree it is not "the" solution, but it is a solution. There are technically better ways to deal with spam, the main problem being the SMTP protocol is inheritently incapable of dealing with spam. Something i read recently that looks promising is Reverse MX (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-01.txt). Basically, the receiving MTA does a DNS looking to see if the sending ip is listed in the reverse mx record of the domain you say the mail is from. If not, the mail is rejected. Seems to be a simple, pretty effective solution. It will stop a lot of mail forgeries. And it will make spammers start using their own servers to send mail, which makes the cost of spamming skyrocket. Which is fine by me. ray -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ray DeJean http://www.r-a-y.org Systems Engineer Southeastern Louisiana University IBM Certified Specialist AIX Administration, AIX Support =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
