On 07.08.09 06:55, Marc Perkel wrote: Oh, please, why html only?
>> On 06.08.09 15:37, Marc Perkel wrote: >>> This might be an advanced concept for you but what I meant was - >>> deliberately send spam. Everyone doing sender verification is someone >>> who is trying to BLOCK spam, and therefore are the good guys. I also >>> track SAV calls and I use it as a WHITE list. > Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >> How do you differ between people doing SAV and people sending backscatter? > The backscatter list mixes these so it mixes SAV with people who have > poorly configured rejection system. SAV doesn't go into the DATA phase so > if they do QUIT without DATA then it's SAV. And if they are doing SAV then > they are one of the good guys and get, in my system, NOBL listed. NOBL > means don't blacklist. Yes, but the others on list are those who accept-then-bounce, who should be blocked asap. >> Do you say that backscatterer list contains IPs of servers that do _not_ >> send backscatter but are doing SAV? Do you have any proofs about that? > Actually the history of the backscatter list is that UCEprotect had them > in their regular black list and do to pressure and complaints and false > positives they separated them out. Their UCEProtect lists are better but > still have a lot of false positives. But separating them was a move > forward. > > What they should do is return different codes to indicate what got them on > the list. SAV is not backscatter. So if it is from <> and there is DATA > then it's someone who is sending bad bounce messages to faked sender > addresses. But if there is nod DATA then it's SAV. These should be > processed separately. While I think that SAV is bad thing, I agree that it should be separated, potionally to different list too... -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. He who laughs last thinks slowest.
