Re: regarding spam...

[Adam Shostack <adam () homeport org>]

On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 12:57:22PM -0700, Ryan Russell wrote:
| On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Adam Shostack wrote:
| > Back when we were building anonymous networks at Zero-Knowledge, we
| > worried a fair bit about being a source of spam.  We limited outbound
| > messages to 250 recipients per day, and refused service for additional
| > messages.  Very few legit users ran into this, and most of our
| > spammers did.
| >
| > It seemed to work really well, and it was a really simple hack to
| > qmail.
| 
| Not bad.  I assume this worked because ZK users were "authenticated" to
| the system?  The same would work for any big ISP that does

Yes.  Incidentally, there's no need to use quotes; the users were
public key authenticated as to their nyms.  We had no way of going fom
nym to name on other id, but they were better authenticated than, say, 
Ebay users.

| relay-after-POP, I would think.  Not workable for ISPs that just rlay for
| anything in their address space?  Or would limiting to 250 per IP per day
| be close enough? (considering the volume that spammers need to move.)

I think that might cause problems for those IP addresses which are
really domains, but they run their own mail systems.  Other than that, 
250 messages per IP per day seems reasonable.

Adam


-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
                                                       -Hume


_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () nfr com
http://list.nfr.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards