on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:39:51PM +0100, Magnus von Koeller (magnus@vonkoeller.de) wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Wednesday 17 December 2003 21:36, ScruLoose wrote:
> > And, given the popularity of online blacklists that track IPs that
> > are _actually__used_ by spammers, how does it make any sense to
> > move backwards from something that's more accurate, in favour of
> > something that's much, MUCH less accurate?
>
> Sorry? If the IP is dynamically assigned, how do you block it? That's
> the whole point of not allowing DynIPs.
Set a TTL on the block.
In practice, most "dynamic" IPs are in use by 24/7 connections which
will hold that IP for days, weeks, or months at a time.
*Intelligent* use of DynIP lookup lists would involve comparing a DynIP
with an RBL, and limiting block times to reasonably appropriate period
after first spam activity from the IP.
As I've already said: statistically, odds are that *any* IP is going to
generate more spam than ham. Why not block 'em all?
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Inconceivable!
- Princess Bride
Attachment:
pgp6c9GLOPntt.pgp
Description: PGP signature