Re: NEVER USE SORBS
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 03:00:23PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > There is ont thing that makes spam detection of mail coming from dynamic IP
> > address less reliable. Static address can be listed in any BL list, and
On 27.07.06 23:47, CaT wrote:
> This seems to contradict your statement below (that being 'All of them
> are just and only lists, evidences of dynamically assigned addresses.
> They do not indicate mail received from them is spam'). If that statement
> is true (and, IMO, it is) then an IP being dynamic does not hinder in
> the detection of spam.
I don't think those statements are opposite... being listed in dynamic host
list doesn't mean that you are spammer, it only means you have dynamically
assigned address. However, most of mail received from such addresses are
spams. And that is the reason why admins use such lists.
> > independantly on use of that list (for scoring or filtering), this can
> > not be done with dynamic IP addresses.
>
> Fatal flaw with blacklists. In the end you wind up shooting the innocent.
as I said, it does not matter whether server uses scoring or filtering. Even
if server uses scoring technology - listing dynamic addresses in classical
spam RBL's is very ineffective, because spammer will reconnect and starts
spamming from different IP.
So, we could end up with all dynamic addresses listed. I think It's much
safer to list all dynamic addresses in different list, and let admins decide
what to do with it.
eh... $.02 ?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges.
Reply to: