nanog mailing list archives
Re: AOL scomp
From: John Osmon <josmon () rigozsaurus com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:30:59 -0700
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 07:08:07PM +0000, Edward B. Dreger wrote: [...]
On the cynical side: Has anyone considered an "inverted" blacklist -- i.e., a _destination_-based mail blocking mechanism? Rejecting mail to parties with excessive bogus complaint rates certainly might simplify life for those tasked with handling "abuse" incidents. ;-)
It's interesting that you should ask that today. A few days ago we started throwing around an idea along these lines: - N = # of bogus abuse/spam reports for a given destination - X = # of reports where we stop delivering mail to a given destination - for 0 < N < X -- deliver the mail, but also inform the sender that the destination address has reported spam/abuse coming from our network, and that if it continues, we won't deliver mail to that destination anymore. - for N > X -- tell the sender that we aren't delivering the mail because it is likely to get us put on a blacklist. We haven't fleshed things out completely, because we're not sure the cure is better than the disease yet... -- John Osmon
Current thread:
- Re: AOL scomp, (continued)
- Re: AOL scomp Joe Maimon (Feb 24)
- Re: AOL scomp Edward B. Dreger (Feb 24)
- Re: AOL scomp Mark Radabaugh (Feb 24)
- Re: AOL scomp Edward B. Dreger (Feb 24)
- Re: AOL scomp Rich Kulawiec (Feb 24)
- Re: AOL scomp Matthew Crocker (Feb 24)
- Re: AOL scomp Vinny Abello (Feb 24)
- Re: AOL scomp Matthew Crocker (Feb 24)
- Re: AOL scomp Suresh Ramasubramanian (Feb 25)
- Re: AOL scomp John Osmon (Feb 24)
- Re: AOL scomp Matt Taber (Feb 24)
- Re: AOL scomp james edwards (Feb 24)
- Re: AOL scomp Joe Maimon (Feb 25)
- Re: AOL scomp Rich Kulawiec (Feb 26)