nanog mailing list archives
Re: spamcop.net?
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen () sprunk org>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:14:16 -0600
Thus spake "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan () fugawi net>
Not for nothing, but there's so much time wasted with all these diversified spam systems.
Many of these systems have been shown to falsely flag non-spamming sites, and the more reliable ones unfortunately don't catch a majority of spammers. This leads to a system where administrators (or users) can locally tune preferences for the level of paranoia they wish to suffer from. This would not be possible if there were only one model or provider.
I've been reading about Barry Shein's proposals and I have to say I am on board with a centralized -single- system based on his young, but intelligent, model.
If there were any single, centralized organization I trusted to do my thinking for me, I'd agree. This is also the same problem that PKI faces. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Current thread:
- spamcop.net? blitz (Mar 03)
- Re: spamcop.net? Will Yardley (Mar 03)
- Re: spamcop.net? Christopher L. Morrow (Mar 03)
- Message not available
- Re: spamcop.net? Martin Hannigan (Mar 03)
- Re: spamcop.net? Christopher L. Morrow (Mar 03)
- Re: spamcop.net? Stephen Sprunk (Mar 04)
- Re: spamcop.net? blitz (Mar 04)
- Re: spamcop.net? chuck goolsbee (Mar 04)
- Re: spamcop.net? Paul Vixie (Mar 04)
- Re: spamcop.net? Martin Hannigan (Mar 03)
- Message not available
- RE: spamcop.net? blitz (Mar 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: spamcop.net? Peter Salus (Mar 04)