It seems to me that FBL are good between MTAs. I'm not sure they are that good, to report back on mail originating from machines on a ISP network. You would have so many reports from zombies, it would not be funny. I think there are other tools to monitor your network activity and the presence of Zombies on your net.
no?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Lewis" <clewis at nortel.com>
To: "Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF" <asrg at irtf.org>
Sent: Thursday, 13 November, 2008 8:21:52 AM (GMT+1200) Auto-Detected
Subject: Re: [Asrg] FeedBack loops
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> Incidentally, I recently concluded an analysis of nearly 5 years worth of
> feedback loop traffic from AOL. (Which is the first one I started using
> on a site of appreciable volume.) This analysis, partially automated
> and partially manual, arrived at the following interesting conclusion:
> the FP rate is 100.000%. Every single feedback loop report identifying
> traffic as spam was wrong.
On a similar note, we average about 2-5 spamcop reports a week. Only
two of them have been right in the past 5 or more years.
Rich's "result" is largely because he doesn't spam, his reports are by
fat-fingered TIS buttons.
Our "result" is because we have a /8, and therefore somewhere around 1%
of all forged Received headers are in our /8. Even spamcop's header
parsing goofs, and when it does, we get dinged. [Yes, we deal with the
true positives, and Spamcop is made aware of the parsing goofs. We are
satisfied with the current situation, despite the vast majority of the
reports being wrong.]
Our AOL FBL had a similar experience: 100% of our reports were wrong for
one of two reasons: fat-fingered TIS buttons, or, the fact that their
FBL generator couldn't cope with /8 declarations, and gave us reports
for someone else's allocation ;-) AOL eventually turned it off because
we mutually decided it wasn't worth the bits.
That is by no means to imply that FBLs are always wrong, or even wrong
most of the time. I'm sure that the vast majority of AOL's FBL reports
are absolutely right. It's just that neither Rich nor us see a
"typical" picture.