John Hardin wrote:
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.
UCRProtect operate a similar scheme to feed their spamtraps from dead
domains (FAQ Q7):
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=2&s=0
Happy to move my dead domain over from UCRProtect to Mark for a while -
it was good for around 600 smtp connection attempts per day last I looked.
