[Tfug] ANTI-SPAM

[Leo Przybylski]

This was my concern too. Depending on the who the users interact with 
through email, one could consider that though SPAM comes through open 
relays, not all mail that comes through open relays is considered SPAM.

So, it is a tough choice to make. Eventually, anyone dealing with SPAM 
might have to make the decision whether denying mail from open relays is 
the best way to go.

What if all system administrators chose to deny mail from open relays 
and all SPAM-hating ISP's denied as well?

Would that not be the death of open-relays? Of course, it is a very 
extremist solution. :-D I'm making a comparisson though. I feel torn 
between two solutions and mine of course is to find the best performing 
long-term solution.

 From that article, I gather that a ban (boycott) on open relays is a 
petition against SPAM. One ISP speaks out and then another. Unless, all 
are joined against SPAM, it won't die though. I figure and anyone can 
jump in and call me an extremist/facist fruitloop, but I just don't see 
the benefits in open-relays, so isn't a ban in order?

-Leo Przybylski

Sam Hart wrote:
> My biggest concerns have always been those raised in articles such as 
> this:
> http://theory.whirlycott.com/~phil/antispam/rbl-bad/rbl-bad.html
> 
> I'm not 100% convinced that simply blocking open-relays will solve the 
> solution any better. In fact, in the article above, the author mentions 
> this as I recall.
> 
> I'm aware that spam "costs" more to the recipient than to the sender, and 
> I'm aware of the fact that a per-mail filtration system like I employ will 
> cost you even more (cost in terms of processing power used)... But I still 
> am of the opinion that it's much better/less discriminatory than simply 
> using RBLs or blocking open relays.
> 
> 
>>  It has the right idea: to get as SPAM at the source. Everybody and his
>>mother can install a "spam filter" on their machine, but that doesn't change
>>the fact that SPAM robs everybody of bandwidth and personal time that
>>could be used for something more productive.
>>
>>  There is such a thing a "junk" snail mail and unsolicited commercial
>>telephone calls. They will never be as prolific as SPAM because there
>>is a media cost for each message. In contrast the price is the same
>>weather you send 100 SPAM's or 1,000,000 SPAM's.
>>
>>                                                     Cheers,
>>                                                     Erich
>>
>>
>>Sam Hart wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Has anyone ever used this? http://relays.osirusoft.com/
>>>>
>>>
>>>Phew... that is one poorly designed page (I couldn't make heads or tails 
>>>out of it ;-)
>>>
>>>I personally haven't used it (or even heard of it), but FWIW, I've had a 
>>>great deal of luck with SpamAssassin + Vipul's Razor. My results can 
>>>actually be found online here:
>>>http://geekcomix.com/snh/spam.shtml
>>>
>>
>>>from there, you can see that since July 2002, I've gotten ~4800 items of 
>>
>>>spam, and only 83 items got past my filters.
>>>
>>>Also, I've been tabulating these results since July 2002, and I will make
>>>a graph of them, and probably do some numerical analysis (to see if my
>>>rate of spam has increased, decreased, and by how much ;-) So, anyone
>>>interested should check back in July 2003 for the results ;-)
>>>
>>>Anyway, appropriate URLs:
>>>http://spamassassin.taint.org/
>>>http://razor.sourceforge.net/
>>>
>>>begin  quote: On 03-02-28, Leo Przybylski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am currently evaluating it. I wonder if anyone has any experience with 
>>>>it. I have a friend that swears by it, but I really need more/better 
>>>>testimonials.
> 
> 

-- 

-Leo Przybylski (leop at engr dot arizona dot edu)
http://foopan.nulldomain.net
http://grow.arizona.edu