Re: BlueSecurity/Blue Frog

Berny wrote:
> "Tim McGraw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Well , I personally find tagging spam a waste of my time, I don't want
> anything in a junk mailbox, otherwise I find I have to go dumpster diving to
> see what got tagged that was goodmail, I'd rather the sender got the 5xx
> notice, even my friends.

This is not an option when you run a business.

A well-managed spam dam is by no means a dumpster. Well, more like a 
shredder. Used daily it will keep your email

> Imagine AOL, Earthlink, SpamCast Hotmail, Yahoo and Gmail* all using SCBL,
> CBL, Spews 1

Outbound? :)

> Or if we had mass access to whois, and blackholing every IP and DNS owned by
> spammers, for example every IP touched by "Paul Gregoire" or registered to
> that funny non-address in Nanaimo, I think the registrars would clean up
> their act also.

Isn't that what spews basically does?

> I am hoping for the day when spam will be sent in the dozens by
> chickenboners who have to get a new hotmail or Yahoo or other free mail
> account for every few spams, answer the kaptcha challenges,  and find a new
> internet cafe or library to sign up for email because that bit of netspace
> will be (at least temporarily)  banned by the free mailers for abuse. Then
> the spam problem will have been solved, and most of us won't see any for
> days on end.

I'm there.

The problem with the current model is that money rules, and all we have 
as individual netizens is to play nice; the Internet, after all, is 
based on massive, mutual cooperation. If we /all/ behaved like Enron 
executives then the Internet would be useless altogether.

Slow and steady wins the race.