On 1/4/2011 10:43 AM, David F. Skoll wrote: > I agree that it's probably eventually "game over" for DNSBLs, but not > for DNSWLs. DNSBLs are a pretty effective first-line defense against > spam, but they will gradually become less and less effective as IPv6 > becomes more heavily adopted. That just means we'll have to emphasize > different techniques. It doesn't mean doom.
I've thought this through and... best case scenario is that spammers then get 5+ years of play time because it will take at least that time for those other techniques to catch up. Great damage will happen in the meantime. In the short term, old habits die hard. Without something like the solution I proposed, blacklists will die a slow and painful death. And most of the negatives I mentioned happening will STILL occur during the transition. When we are left with only whitelists and no blacklists, an interesting problem will happen... there will be extreme prejudice against ALL new IPs not already whitelisted. This will create a "chicken/egg" problem whereby a new startup company with new IPs will be screwed. (plus, small businesses will also have a hard time getting "respect" as they have have difficulty getting enough "traction" to get their IPs whitelisted!) Then, to fix the chicken/egg problem, someone will come along and create some kind of "IPv6 senders list" for new IPs that haven't been whitelisted yet. It will be extremely similar to my original proposed solution, since spammers will have no choice but to try to get on the "IPv6 senders list" list, too--but will be extremely limited in the volume of IPs they get on that that list. We'll then come full circle... except going with (something like) my proposed solution *now* instead of *then* means that we wouldn't have to have destroyed blacklists (and set spam filtering years back) in the meantime. -- Rob McEwen http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/ r...@invaluement.com +1 (478) 475-9032
