On Tue, 19 May 2009, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
On 19/05/09 10:55 AM, "Marc Perkel" <m...@perkel.com> wrote:
That's not how I would define dead. Our system can tell the difference
between a good email sent to a dead domain and a spambot. Our
definition is any domain that has not current legitimate email.
Good for you! You are one up on the CBL, then, who have had some false
positives that I personally know of; nice to see you are entirely, 100%
free of error.
And also nice to see you bucking conventional wisdom from DNSBL
operators on what constitutes a dead domain. I¹m with you. Fly in the
face of experience, strike out in wildly new directions.
Mark's intent is not to create a BL of dead domains. He wants owners of
dead domains to add themselves to his high-MX spamtrap so that he can
identify zombies sending to those domains. A "dead" domain (whichever way
you define it) will suffer to a much lesser degree from the
previously-discussed privacy problems of this spamtrap.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The question of whether people should be allowed to harm themselves
is simple. They *must*. -- Charles Murray
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 days until the 5th anniversary of SpaceshipOne winning the X-prize
