On 2003.06.16 06:29 Scott Harney wrote: > On Sunday 15 June 2003 10:35 pm, -ray wrote: > > 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. > > This is very close to what AOL does already. They siimply reverse lookup the > IP you're sending from to make sure there's a match. It's not to hard to set > up your mail server to make sure that there is. It would be harder to make > sure the MX record for your domain, whatever.com, is > my-cable-modem-forward-lookup.com >
If AOL uses this method, you just proved it does not work. My favorite methods are fines and cut-offs. Cox could monitor email volume and automatically cut off people who suddenly start spamming. A better solution is to fine the spammer. "Real" spam has a way to get in touch because the sender wants your money. "Unreal" spam is just another DoS attack and needs to countered the same way.
