e-mail blacklists (was Re: SPEWS?)

["J.D. Falk" <jdfalk () cybernothing org>]

On 06/20/02, "Geo." <georger () getinfo net> wrote: 

> That was kinda my point. We need to stop this pushing and shoving back and
> forth and find solutions that work and don't depend on bending every ISP on
> the planet to conformity because that's never going to happen. The forcing
> approach reminds me of copy protection, lets force everyone to be good.
> Guess what, it's a big network and it's getting bigger and you'll never get
> everyone to conform. So I suggest we take a different road whether that be
> dynamic blocking as soon as a spamming starts or heuristic filters or
> whatever else we can come up with that works.
>
> Note, I'm not saying don't use spews, just realize it's a copy protection
> type of approach and will be of limited success for the same reasons.

        Copy protection is a good comparison, and one which I haven't
        seen before.  However, dynamic blacklists will eventually fall
        into the same trap; spammers will find ways around 'em.  Static
        or dynamic, you're still trying to apply a purely technical 
        solution to a social problem.

        All that said, I do agree that dynamic lists are the obvious
        next step; they'll probably buy us another six months to a
        year.  But spamcop's in specific is still based on spamcop user 
        complaints, and most of the spamcop user complaints I've seen 
        have been grossly mistargetted.

-- 
J.D. Falk                                         "It's all vegan, except for
<jdfalk () cybernothing org>                                the goat squeezings!"
                                                                   -- rachel