From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 10 19:41:54 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C9616A4CE for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:41:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from kanga.honeypot.net (kanga.honeypot.net [208.162.254.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C071343D5A for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:41:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kirk@strauser.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kanga.honeypot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01FBC2220AF for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:41:53 -0600 (CST) Received: from kanga.honeypot.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kanga.honeypot.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 50962-15 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:41:50 -0600 (CST) Received: from janus.daycos.com (janus.daycos.com [204.26.70.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by kanga.honeypot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA2C2220AE for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:41:50 -0600 (CST) From: Kirk Strauser To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:41:46 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <577aeb585de8853de552772d76cb2a96@lafn.org> In-Reply-To: <577aeb585de8853de552772d76cb2a96@lafn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2583049.Ev4rPjk5xn"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200503101341.49900.kirk@strauser.com> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at honeypot.net Subject: Re: how to deal with spam for good? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:41:54 -0000 --nextPart2583049.Ev4rPjk5xn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 10 March 2005 12:40, Doug Hardie wrote: > Unfortunately it does nothing for the spammers who get their own domain > and establish their own SPF records. Not necessarily true. If you can *force* senders to tie themselves to thei= r=20 own domain, then it becomes rather easy to blacklist that particular=20 domain. Imagine having a DNS blackhole list that was 100% accurate with no= =20 chance of collateral damage. If SPF (or another similar system) were=20 universally deployed, then such things would be possible. > Likewise SPF will not close any of the open relays run by the > organizations that are pushing SPF.=20 I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you elaborate? > Spam will only go away when people no longer respond to it. You know, I'm no longer sure that's true. I think that spam will stick=20 around as long as stupid business owners continue to get suckered into=20 thinking that it's a legitimate means of marketing. One of my associate's= =20 customers (a brick and mortar store) was being sweet-talked by a spammer=20 into sending a series of broadcasts. In this situation, the spammer would= =20 profit off the ignorance of that *business owner*. Even if 100% of the=20 messages were blocked, he'd still get his pay for performing the "service". =2D-=20 Kirk Strauser --nextPart2583049.Ev4rPjk5xn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQBCMKL95sRg+Y0CpvERAll4AJ4m3TslpkteAi8RPBkdxofcsZ8aQQCgmMf9 vrp5TU2JfDHAxJHATrsODx8= =E3Le -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2583049.Ev4rPjk5xn--