Re: BlueSecurity/Blue Frog

Berny wrote:
> 
> That being said, I shoould say that out of dozens of spams I look at
> carefully on a daily basis, and many more cursorily while fulfilling SC
> reports, that the number of IB'd and joe jobbed sites is almost vanishingly
> small,. perhaps 1 spam or less a month out of thousands.

That may be true for your spam, but that doesn't make it true for my spam.

> Collateral damage to spam sources and spamvertizing hosters is inevitable
> and , frankly necessary, it's the only way ISP's and hosters will be forced
> to choose between an abusive and non abusive clientele. Until then they can
> all make salutory efforts against the spammers, scammers, phishers and
> ddossers and earn revenue from all of them.

Using that logic, if we eliminate all the pimps in the world there won't 
be any prostitution.

I don't buy it.

> Yes I'd like to see providers 5xx-ing all mails on the SCBL, why? well it's
> better than what most mail providers do now, some 80 to 90 % of the incoming
> mailstream after analysis for spammishness of one kind or another is
> silently dropped on the floor. and yes  a not insignificant amount of
> goodmail simply disappears, the sender never knows, the receiver never
> knows, (unless the sender asks the receiver to write back if the mail was
> not received :) ).

Lots of problems here. For one thing, blocking based on the SCBL alone 
is a bad idea. If you applied scoring intelligently you would virtually 
never drop goodmail on the floor.

I'm glad you're not my postmaster.

> Most people shouln't delude themselves, if you're using a large commercial
> mail service, those dozen or so spams in your junk folder are only a small
> fraction of the junk mail stream that has been dropped into dave nulls
> basket.

You can't make a blanket statement like that without the evidence. In 
fact, I'm on a large commercial mail service and I know I get /everything/.

> Anyway to get back to the topic at hand, SC its self does something similar,
> mailbombing postmasters etc. who are connected with a spam, and Vern Shryver
> isn't so far off the mark, and SC's whiteness isn't so different from BS's
> blackness. we're all dealing with shades of grey here.

There is nothing grey about the long-established tradition of sending 
LARTs to abuse@ or postmaster@ or another addy "on file."