Posted by
michael
on from the unplug-the-ethernet-for-best-results dept.
Dru writes "Here's an article talking about the details
of implementing a network level spam defense
with Qmail. It also talks a little about a new site called
Trustic
which uses a trust system (like Advogato) for
nominating spammer/hostile IP's."
Hurrah for blacklists
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
now all we need to ask is how long till this "community" service that they provide will take before they start charging $ for querying it just like every other blacklist, making blocking spam a privilidge for the rich (i believe MAPS is over a 1000$ a year)
Distrustful of Network Level Censorship
by
werdna
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
No thanks.
Your spam may be my correspondence -- I may want to get mail from those whose conduct you find abhorrent. Today, a network may responsibly be censoring only unwanted and unsolicited commercial e-mail. Next week, the powers-that-be-in-the-networks start censoring geek news.
To protect our liberties, spam control should be decentralized -- as close to the last mile as possible. Yes, of course, this means that the supposed great harm of spam -- huge volume transmissions through the network -- will not be interdicted closer to the source. In my view, an effective end-point spam model is as likely to reduce volume as a network centered model: the idea is to reduce the INCENTIVE to spam -- that will reduce the volume.
Centralized technical measures simply invite the spam wars to continue, provide centralized points of failure, will not diminish spam, and will assure that powers-that-be have ample new abilities to censor speech.
Re:Distrustful of Network Level Censorship
by
kaisyain
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
To protect our liberties, spam control should be decentralized -- as close to the last mile as possible.
It is. I'm the one deciding whether or not to use this service.
Re:Distrustful of Network Level Censorship
by
RT+Alec
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Spam control with RBLs is, in fact, decentralized. There are many RBLs to choose from, and any that are too severe will not be used for long if they generate too many false positives. As a system admin, I have my choice. I use 4 RBLs right now:
spamhaus.relays.osirusoft.com
(this is a mirror of the Spamhaus Block List) Well known spam operations, and is checked hourly.
dialups.relays.osiruSoft.com
(details at OsiruSoft) This list is of DHCP IP addresses of home users (DSL, cable, dial up).
rbl.restongeek.com
I maintain this one myself for anything I want all my servers, primary and backup MX, to block
And there are many more to choose from.
I am very happy with my results, it is a pleasure to see the reports of the mail that is blocked (see my/. journal for a sample report). If I start to think maybe one of these lists is a little too severe, or someone lets me know that there are problems with one or more of the lists, I will delete it and pick another. Or maybe not. It is my choice, I want to keep down the spam on my system, for my sake as well as my clients'.
Re:Distrustful of Network Level Censorship
by
gfody
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
problem is too many of you are deciding TO use it. AOL, Hotmail, MSN to name a few.. the 'want' to filter spam at the server level hurts legit email marketers, inconveniences recipients of legit email marketers, and to the parent's point - creates a target for spammers.
server side email filtering is BAD, BAD, BAD!
what if the US Post Office started throwing out your clearing house sweepstakes and credit card applications before you ever got them? problem is theres two kinds of people in the world.. those that say alright no more junk mail, and those that ask, how do you do that without getting a false positive once in a while?
--
bite my glorious golden ass.
Re:Distrustful of Network Level Censorship
by
John+Hasler
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
> if your going to get a false positive why filter?
My spam folder gets several hundred messages each day. It is _impossible_ for me to read every one of them to determine if it is really spam. I glance over the subject lines and read the occasional borderline one, but I _guarantee_ you that I am already getting false positives. If I dropped spamassassin and allowed the spam into my other folders I would get even more false positives as I impatiently deleted every other message as obvious spam.
-- Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Here's my question.
by
fleppir
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Any spam measure taken at a server level could induce false positives.
I manage paid-for e-mail e-zines which I mail using PHP and sendmail (read:forged headers until I'm big enough to run my own server).
Wouldn't most server-layer anti-spam measures catch my very suspicious HTML e-zines, even if paid for?
-- I am the Barber of Seville.
Re:Sounds neat, but PGP'ed network sounds better.
by
Mr.+Sketch
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If Company X is being real lax (eg: promoting spam), write a revoke key and put it on a few OTHER machines. Thien it'll propigate throught the mail-net to disallow all connections from that MAIL server.
Just curious, how is this different from a blacklist? It sounds like the same concept, just different technology.
Re:Sounds neat, but PGP'ed network sounds better.
by
arth1
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Having to generate and spread keys and key revocations non-stop sounds like a very high maintenance system.
Well, at least that would give some techies back their jobs, although I'm not too sure they would like their new job...
Regards, -- *Art
Qmail is NOT FREE
by
SuperBanana
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
qmail is completely free and folks that claim it isn't are just trolls.
Qmail is NOT FREE. Last I looked it was distributed without a license; now apparently it has a license, but one with oddball restrictions. If you don't believe me, do a google search with the keywords "qmail debian legal" and spend 30 minutes or so going through the various discussions.
IP banning is bad
by
Animats
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Unless you have some way to identify dynamically assigned IP addresses, IP banning hits innocent parties too often.
Every time Joe Sixpack, running Windows XP Home Edition on a DSL line, gets a virus that spams, the next few people to get a lease on that IP address have mail blocked.
Slashdot Mirror
now all we need to ask is how long till this "community" service that they provide will take before they start charging $ for querying it just like every other blacklist, making blocking spam a privilidge for the rich (i believe MAPS is over a 1000$ a year)
No thanks.
Your spam may be my correspondence -- I may want to get mail from those whose conduct you find abhorrent. Today, a network may responsibly be censoring only unwanted and unsolicited commercial e-mail. Next week, the powers-that-be-in-the-networks start censoring geek news.
To protect our liberties, spam control should be decentralized -- as close to the last mile as possible. Yes, of course, this means that the supposed great harm of spam -- huge volume transmissions through the network -- will not be interdicted closer to the source. In my view, an effective end-point spam model is as likely to reduce volume as a network centered model: the idea is to reduce the INCENTIVE to spam -- that will reduce the volume.
Centralized technical measures simply invite the spam wars to continue, provide centralized points of failure, will not diminish spam, and will assure that powers-that-be have ample new abilities to censor speech.
Any spam measure taken at a server level could induce false positives.
I manage paid-for e-mail e-zines which I mail using PHP and sendmail (read:forged headers until I'm big enough to run my own server).
Wouldn't most server-layer anti-spam measures catch my very suspicious HTML e-zines, even if paid for?
I am the Barber of Seville.
If Company X is being real lax (eg: promoting spam), write a revoke key and put it on a few OTHER machines. Thien it'll propigate throught the mail-net to disallow all connections from that MAIL server.
Just curious, how is this different from a blacklist? It sounds like the same concept, just different technology.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Having to generate and spread keys and key revocations non-stop sounds like a very high maintenance system.
Well, at least that would give some techies back their jobs, although I'm not too sure they would like their new job...
Regards,
--
*Art
Qmail is NOT FREE. Last I looked it was distributed without a license; now apparently it has a license, but one with oddball restrictions. If you don't believe me, do a google search with the keywords "qmail debian legal" and spend 30 minutes or so going through the various discussions.
Please help metamoderate.
There's got to be a better way.