From: "MennovB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
Reducing volume of spam *sent* probably requires fundamental redesign
of the protocols, or some other major change in the cost/benefit
analysis.
Don't think that's needed, if ISP's only allow outgoing SMTP to the ISP's
SMTP servers and not directly then most (current) bots and most spam will be
dealt with. I wouldn't be surprised to see the amount of spam then drop more
than 80%. (I know, just repeating myself ;-))
Come to think of it, changes are the zombies/bots will then be used for
DDOS'ing everything that has an IP-address just as revenge :(
Menno, if the Earthlink "progressive delays" strategy is adopted then
even spam relayed through ISPs becomes time expensive. Add to that
smtp-auth pointing directly to the perpetrator and Earthlink has a
clear excuse to block email except to their help desk or even to
block all Internet access except to a page of their own suggesting
that the perpetrator or malware on the perpetrator's machine is spewing
spam and the situation should be remedied. "Help can be found here...."
Of course, then if you have the spammer friendly ISPs and registrars
in the picture it's all null and void.
Something I do not know and suspect is REALLY hard to ascertain until
recently when Earthlink went smtpauth only, is how much REAL spam
actually does originate from Earthlink servers. If there is much they
are certainly canny enough not to spam Earthlink customers for some
reason.
{^_^}
