Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Also modified: <http://www.openspf.org/FAQ/Hints_for_ISPs>
CIDR notation allows to collect a huge number of IPs within a
reasonable record size. I used this technique to collect roughly all
the records from the RIPE registry. A better technique is to use a
DNSBL whitelist to collect exactly the IPs belonging to a given
political region. (RIPE holds lots of Eastern IPs, besides EU's ones.)
Allowing all IPs of a given region as neutral is a good compromise wrt
?all. Even all RIPE is roughly 1/5 of the whole world. I've been
running that record for months with decent results (except with
relatively recent Eastern development.)
The rationale is that abuses originating in the country where one
lives can more easily be addressed by legal means, or, at least, by
mentioning a possible recourse to authorities when complaining with
the spammer's provider. In facts, it seems that some spammers pay some
attention to that fact, possibly using ccTLDs to avoid directly
spamming customers of their own providers. Therefore, it shouldn't be
a bad idea for regionally localized ISPs to configure their SPF
policies that way.
Recourse to legal anti-spam measures is implicit in SPF's philosophy,
as that's what we will be left with when all domains will have
published decent policies and spammers will be using legal sender
addresses, eventually.
IMHO, it should be part of a Country's duties to run a DNSBL whitelist
like those mentioned above, for law and order concerns.
Any thoughts?
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
> Also modified: <http://www.openspf.org/FAQ/Hints_for_ISPs>
CIDR notation allows to collect a huge number of IPs within a
reasonable record size. I used this technique to collect roughly all
the records from the RIPE registry. A better technique is to use a
DNSBL whitelist to collect exactly the IPs belonging to a given
political region. (RIPE holds lots of Eastern IPs, besides EU's ones.)
Allowing all IPs of a given region as neutral is a good compromise wrt
?all. Even all RIPE is roughly 1/5 of the whole world. I've been
running that record for months with decent results (except with
relatively recent Eastern development.)
The rationale is that abuses originating in the country where one
lives can more easily be addressed by legal means, or, at least, by
mentioning a possible recourse to authorities when complaining with
the spammer's provider. In facts, it seems that some spammers pay some
attention to that fact, possibly using ccTLDs to avoid directly
spamming customers of their own providers. Therefore, it shouldn't be
a bad idea for regionally localized ISPs to configure their SPF
policies that way.
Recourse to legal anti-spam measures is implicit in SPF's philosophy,
as that's what we will be left with when all domains will have
published decent policies and spammers will be using legal sender
addresses, eventually.
IMHO, it should be part of a Country's duties to run a DNSBL whitelist
like those mentioned above, for law and order concerns.
Any thoughts?
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com