Mailing List Archive

On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 10:10 +0000, spf@anarres.org wrote:
> I remain justified in my belief that catchalls must expect more spam than
> regular accounts.

Your study of one single domain may indeed appear to justify that
belief. In fact I agree with you that catchalls probably do expect more
spam.

It doesn't necessarily follow that it's therefore acceptable to turn my
machine into an open relay for people to use to spam such domains.

--
dwmw2

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=srs-discuss@v2.listbox.com

On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 10:10:10AM +0000, spf@anarres.org wrote:
> This morning, a profile of a few hundred messages to a catchall account
> shows that approximately 50% of them were addressed to local-parts which
> do not and have never existed at that domain.

I'm not sure how you define "local-parts which do not and have never
existed at that domain"

I used to have an account at demon, and my username was 'asdf'. Their mail
system accepted mail to *@asdf.demon.co.uk and put it in my mailbox. There
was no definition of local-parts at all.

> I remain justified in my belief that catchalls must expect more spam than
> regular accounts.

You're probably right, but spam is still spam, and those people are still
justified in reporting each instance to the source, and blacklisting any
intermediate machines which it was relayed through. I think that's the point
which people were trying to make.

Pragmatically, if any one of the big open-relay/open-proxy blacklists
disagrees with you, and starts sending their probles to 'srs1+.....' to make
the point, then anyone who supports srs1 is stuffed.

Regards,

Brian.

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=srs-discuss@v2.listbox.com