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."
and thereafter all packets from said IP's are market with the Evil Bit.
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)
There are many problems with using RBLs to block connections. A very good description can be found here: I've found SpamAssassin a fairly good, rather than block messages from RBLs it analysis message content, adds points to messages in RBLs and checks known Spam databases such as Razor and Pyzor. Rules matches are given a score, and messages with a total aggregate score are tagged in the message headers, allowing users to filter these if they want to. A main advantage of this method is that no single rule can flag a message as spam, hence legitimate mail sourcing from the badly configured mail relay has a chance of getting through, and in my mind it's probably a particularly bad idea to block any email unless it's actually addressed to you.
Re:Just junk SMTP? Not Possible
by
Xerithane
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Its simply too late to dump SMTP. If we would have thought about this 5 or so years ago it maybe would have been possible but now we have so many using this system its inpossible to change to a newer standard.
Just like gopher with http? You can also add a plethora of validation ontop of SMTP. SMTP, as a protocol, isn't bad. It's possible to add validation, to only accept from SMTP servers that use some sort of valid key.
Then you get to keep SMTP, and slowly migrate servers. Setup a non-profit organization for distributing SMTP authentication keys that are unique to the mail server (think SSL) and if the mail comes from that server is spam, you just block that servers key. If the server doesn't have a key, put it into a validation list or send backa response saying they need to use a mail server that supports signed-SMTP.
Easy solution, not a complete overhaul of SMTP. The problem comes in with who signs the certificates, because then you have to trust the source that delivers them. Like Verisign, et al.
Or you could use a better mailer...
by
SuperBanana
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Here's an article talking about the details of implementing a network level spam defense with Qmail
Or, you could just use Postfix, which:
is almost entirely compatible with sendmail. It's pretty much drop-in-and-go.
adheres to RFCs(and there's a warning for any configuration option which would violate said RFCs)
has builtin anti-spam tools- you can turn on, individually, any of a dozen-plus different checks, such as making sure the claimed hostname in the HELO matches the IP the connection is coming from(you can do this several ways), or that the claimed hostname matches the mail-from user@hostname(ie, if you're coming from spammer.com, you're not gonna be able to claim to be joe@yahoo.com), etc. It's also one builtin command to check an RBL.
has a really sharp cookie of an author(the guy wrote tcpwrapper), who isn't widely regarded as an obnoxious twit
is completely free
Personally, I refuse to use any software written by DJB as a matter of principle. The guy flagrantly ignores RFCs because he simply feels like it and arrogantly thinks he knows better(and further that there is benefit to ignoring said RFCs).
Re:Distrustful of Network Level Censorship
by
Jahf
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
and SPAM is WORSE, WORSE, WORSE!
If you want to receive the junk, don't use one of those services, but I fail to see how someone else choosing -to- is a problem.
Your analogy is flawed. I have a choice to use AOL|Hotmail|MSN|spamassasin|etc and I pay for the connection to download, view, respond and delete my email (not to mention the time it takes out of my day). I don't have a choice whether or not to use the USPO and it takes FAR less of my time to sort out my real mail than it does email.
If SPAM could somehow be filtered out at the router level, then I would agree with your USPO analogy and would be throwing an utter FIT. But it isn't possible (is that a web page or a webmail, is that IMAP, is that secure IMAP, is that POP3, is that email tunnelled over SSH... no way).
Until there is legislation with -teeth- and a way for the little guy to prosecute you are not going to see many people agree with you about server side filtering.
-- It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Slashdot Mirror
and thereafter all packets from said IP's are market with the Evil Bit.
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)
Another blacklist (with an appeals process). Run by a guy that made his millons selling eGroups to Yahoo!.
Dunno, this doesn't look too promising.
There are many problems with using RBLs to block connections. A very good description can be found here:
I've found SpamAssassin a fairly good, rather than block messages from RBLs it analysis message content, adds points to messages in RBLs and checks known Spam databases such as Razor and Pyzor. Rules matches are given a score, and messages with a total aggregate score are tagged in the message headers, allowing users to filter these if they want to.
A main advantage of this method is that no single rule can flag a message as spam, hence legitimate mail sourcing from the badly configured mail relay has a chance of getting through, and in my mind it's probably a particularly bad idea to block any email unless it's actually addressed to you.
Its simply too late to dump SMTP. If we would have thought about this 5 or so years ago it maybe would have been possible but now we have so many using this system its inpossible to change to a newer standard.
Just like gopher with http? You can also add a plethora of validation ontop of SMTP. SMTP, as a protocol, isn't bad. It's possible to add validation, to only accept from SMTP servers that use some sort of valid key.
Then you get to keep SMTP, and slowly migrate servers. Setup a non-profit organization for distributing SMTP authentication keys that are unique to the mail server (think SSL) and if the mail comes from that server is spam, you just block that servers key. If the server doesn't have a key, put it into a validation list or send backa response saying they need to use a mail server that supports signed-SMTP.
Easy solution, not a complete overhaul of SMTP. The problem comes in with who signs the certificates, because then you have to trust the source that delivers them. Like Verisign, et al.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Or, you could just use Postfix, which:
Personally, I refuse to use any software written by DJB as a matter of principle. The guy flagrantly ignores RFCs because he simply feels like it and arrogantly thinks he knows better(and further that there is benefit to ignoring said RFCs).
Please help metamoderate.
and SPAM is WORSE, WORSE, WORSE!
... no way).
If you want to receive the junk, don't use one of those services, but I fail to see how someone else choosing -to- is a problem.
Your analogy is flawed. I have a choice to use AOL|Hotmail|MSN|spamassasin|etc and I pay for the connection to download, view, respond and delete my email (not to mention the time it takes out of my day). I don't have a choice whether or not to use the USPO and it takes FAR less of my time to sort out my real mail than it does email.
If SPAM could somehow be filtered out at the router level, then I would agree with your USPO analogy and would be throwing an utter FIT. But it isn't possible (is that a web page or a webmail, is that IMAP, is that secure IMAP, is that POP3, is that email tunnelled over SSH
Until there is legislation with -teeth- and a way for the little guy to prosecute you are not going to see many people agree with you about server side filtering.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.