Re: Trouble with Sender Authentication
Douglas Otis <[email protected]> Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:37:58 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mxcomp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Nov 8, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Dean Anderson wrote: > I also found a few blacklists abusing open relays. I did this by > creating non-production relays, logging TCP connections to them, > and then submitting them to the blacklist for scanning. After only > scanning by the blacklist, they started getting abused. There's > more, but you get the idea. And now, the abusers are easily > distinguished from the genuine mailers by CAN-SPAM---this is why > "anti-spam" people hate CAN-SPAM so much. (quotes because they > really aren't anti-spam people) It is not surprising that listing an open-relay exposes such services defeating a security through obscurity scheme. While the CAN-SPAM act is not entirely bad, the greatest harm was from over-riding reasonable State Opt-in requirements. This act still allows acceptable use policies. Neither this act nor the suit you mention changed these acceptable use policies, and there is a growing adoption of these policies worldwide. Opt-in use policies continue despite CAN-SPAM requirements established for Opt-out. In general, it remains a bad idea for a recipient to Opt-out unless they are sure of the sender. Just as it remains a bad idea for recipients to run scripts in messages or obtain photos when they are unsure. It also remains a bad idea for the sender to post bulk email unless their mailing lists have been confirmed by the recipients. -Doug