[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Frank Carmickle and Marco Paganini must die

On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:37:19AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 17:26 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le lundi 20 septembre 2004 ? 15:38 +0200, Michelle Konzack a ?crit :
> > > For SPAMers you will get them very quickly if they use T1/E1 or
> > > something like this, and they can be stoped bei RIPE for example. 
> > > 
> > > SPAMers from Dynamic IP's are different. 
> > > 
> > > Now, we know, that most SPAM does not come directly from the ADSL-
> > > Account owner, because most of them are infected with Viruses which do
> > > the SPAMjob.
> > > 
> > > Blocking MAIL from DUL/DSL is the right thing.
> > 
> > It won't achieve *anything*.
> > If a spam is issued by an infected machine with a dynamic IP, it can use
> > the SMTP server from the ISP as well. How do you make the difference
> > betwen the two?
> All hands up for smarter spammers!

Spammers have shown themselves to be... if not smart, then at least
notoriously rat-cunning (no offence meant to the noble rat).  They have
adapted to everything that the combined intelligence of the anti-spam
movement has been able to widely deploy, and the flows are still increasing. 
Those methods which are still reported to be working well (greylisting, for
instance) are still not widely deployed.

In short, spammers are as smart as they need to be.

> seriously, that argument assumes that the ISP isn't filtering for spam
> at all.

Just as recipient-side spam filters aren't perfect, I'm quite sure that
sender-side spam filters are defective too.  Furthermore, it's probably
harder to reliably trigger an SMTP-level response to a positive spam check
on the sender side -- I wouldn't bet that Outlook's SMTP implementation is
clueful enough to really Do The Right Thing with a 5xx at initial

- Matt

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: