nanog mailing list archives
Re: Spam?
From: Richard Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 06:27:21 -0400
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 06:48:54PM +1200, Don Gould wrote:
OMG can't you people run proper spam filtering on your own mail servers that filter out the nanog messages that are spam?!
One of the fundamental principles of spam mitigation is that blocking is usually best (in terms of: efficacy, accuracy, resource minimization, and other metrics) when applied as close to the source as possible. In the case of mailing lists, such as this one, it has been a best practice for many years to only permit traffic from subscribers (and optionally, from individually-listed addresses, which are often alternate addresses for subscribers). It is clear that a serious mistake was made during the attempted migration of this list, i.e., this best practice was not followed, thus allowing some number of messages from non-subscribers to reach some number of subscribers. The proper solution to this is most emphatically not to ask the thousands of NANOG subscribers to adjust their mail systems; the proper solution is to continue to employ this best practice. ---rsk
Current thread:
- Re: OT: Given what you know now, if you were 21 again..., (continued)
- Re: OT: Given what you know now, if you were 21 again... -Hammer- (Jul 13)
- Re: OT: Given what you know now, if you were 21 again... Jay Ashworth (Jul 13)
- Re: OT: Given what you know now, if you were 21 again... Don Gould (Jul 13)
- RE: OT: Given what you know now, if you were 21 again... Leigh Porter (Jul 14)
- Re: OT: Given what you know now, if you were 21 again... Daniƫl W . Crompton (Jul 14)
- Re: OT: Given what you know now, if you were 21 again... Joel Maslak (Jul 14)
- Re: OT: Given what you know now, if you were 21 again... Florian Weimer (Jul 17)
- Re: OT: Given what you know now, if you were 21 again... Michael Dillon (Jul 21)
- Re: Spam? Paul Graydon (Jul 14)
- Re: Spam? Richard Kulawiec (Jul 14)