[rescue] Spam (was: Perverse Question)
alaric at caerllewys.net
Sat Jun 7 17:07:41 CDT 2003
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 04:13:24PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> So I think it would be much simpler to unplug the spammers (where
> possible) and motivate people to unplug the spammers (where not).
Oh, so do I. My point was that inability to forge headers makes it much
easier to identify the spammers in order to unplug them, and I thought
I'd come up with a way to prevent them for being able to send mail with
> This is already long, but let me touch on the RMX ("reverse MX") idea(s)
> So imagine a DNS record type called "XM", and imagine that it gets set up
> for every host that emits mail. So:
> XM fred.example.com.
> XM barney.example.com.
> What does this get us? Well, for one thing, the LACK of an XM for
> wilma.example.com, means that the owner of example.com is making a
> statement that mail will NEVER come from wilma -- so if you are on the
> receiving end of a connection attempt to your port 25 from wilma, you
> should should drop the connection. Or not accept it to begin with.
This is a nice idea. Simple and elegant.
> [...] and -- I think -- when
> something happens, it is likely to happen in DNS with supporting code
> in the MTAs.
So you're still back to requiring MTA modification.
> And it will be a huge argument and a nasty, painful process of implementation.
> Which is why I still think it's simpler to just unplug the spammers.
But first you have to identify them ....
>  Thank you Douglas Adams.
Another fine Charlie who is much missed ....
.********* Fight Back! It may not be just YOUR life at risk. *********.
: phil stracchino : unix ronin : renaissance man : mystic zen biker geek :
: alaric at caerllewys.net : alaric-ruthven at earthlink.net : phil at latt.net :
: 2000 CBR929RR, 1991 VFR750F3 (foully murdered), 1986 VF500F (sold) :
: Linux Now! ...Because friends don't let friends use Microsoft. :
More information about the rescue