I realize this is way off topic, but it is important to spam fighting.
jdow wrote:
Yes, they should have a separate block of IP addresses for those that pay the added cost. And those don't get reported to the SORBS DUL list. Maybe other lists if they actually do spam but not DUL.On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 10:11:12AM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:the cable/dsl link and
Hi,
if I did not miss anything in this thread, the victim HAS a static IP on
provider.pays more for the access than dynamic ip would cost with the same
percent ofThe provider, however, reports a full ip block (which may have a few
name as senderstatic ip's) as dialup.
I believe the extra money they get on the fixed ip should allow them to
- either report correctly or
- create a mail relay where authenticated users can use their own domain
So because he is on an address block listed as dialup he gets no chance to issue an SPF for his site. Ah well.
He could but unfortunately SPF doesn't solve the problem. The very same zombie machines that are spewing spam are also DNS servers offering SPF records for the domain they claim to send from. And those domains are either registered with false or forged information or registered anonymously, thanks to the policies of some registrars, aided and abetted by ICANN. Spammers are adopting SPF faster than the rest of the Internet.
It's a difficult situation we're in and there is no silver bullet. We need every resource we can use, including good block lists, SPF as a rule in SpamAssassin and more. It's very depressing and getting worse, according to my mail servers' statistics. We need everyone with a clue to help by sending mail in ways that support the resources we use instead of whining that they can't do something the way they want. Don't blame me and the other mail server admins if you can't get mail to our systems because you are sending from a machine on a DSL modem. Blame the spammers and those that buy from them!
--
Bob Amen
O'Reilly Media, Inc.
http://www.ora.com/
http://www.oreilly.com/