Re: [Asrg] Spam detection system proposal

["David F. Skoll" <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote:

> I have had technical support people at bulk mailer providers tell me
> that they are not allowed to prune bounces out of lists because
> marketing doesn't want to tell the customer that the list just shrank

Well, they *deserve* to be punished, IMO.

> Oh please.  Not poisoning.  Just what we wanted.  More bandwidth use.

> Every  one of those poisoned message gets an attempted delivery.
> Every one generates a bounce.

Not necessarily; see Chris Lewis's post earlier.

> Every bounce tries to go somewhere else.  Have you ever been the
> return address on a spam mailing?

Yes.  It's not fun.  But I do not think poisoning address lists will
make all that much difference.

> You  want to see your mail server go to its knees?

It's a risk I face whether we poison lists or not.

> Poisoning spam lists is just contributing to the spam-as-DoS problem.

I don't think it makes that much difference; people change e-mail
addresses all the time.

> And God-forbid your poisoner uses an address that is
> fake today, but real tomorrow.

Ah, no; a responsible poisoner only releases poisoned addresses under
a domain he/she owns.  You have a point there.

--
David.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg