[SURBL-Discuss] general questions.....
jeffc at surbl.org
Wed Nov 24 22:00:46 CET 2004
On Wednesday, November 24, 2004, 6:47:56 AM, Steven Champeon wrote:
> on Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 01:58:55PM -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2004, 12:25:16 PM, Steven Champeon wrote:
>> > I see a future in which legit mail servers are simply expected to be
>> > configured within a reasonable bound, and act in reasonably nonabusive
>> > ways, or else their mail will be rejected. Here, anyway. Unfortunately,
>> > the spammers will likely simply beat us to it, so even these checks
>> > become less useful.
>> Yeah, it just means the spammers will need to fake or steal
>> services better. That's why sender checks are probably less
>> useful than content checks.
> I dunno - with 50 million (or more) zombies out there? Sender checks
> are going to be useful for a good long time. As long as we can keep the
> fixed-netblock spammers in check with DNSBLs like SBL we'll do well.
I use regular SBL too, but spammers have found ways around RBLs,
such as zombies that only send a few messages, etc.
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
More information about the Discuss