Ned Slider wrote:
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.
Thanks - I appreciate that. I'll use the spam traffic to blacklist the
evil spammers!
