IP address reputation, BorderWare

Res res at ausics.net
Sun Mar 25 10:39:36 CEST 2007

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Rick Chadderdon wrote:

> Res wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Kevin Miller wrote:
>>> Bandwidth that isn't used by a spammer is bandwidth that is available
>>> for your users to use.  No magic there.  Think freeway - would you
>>> rather drive it under rush hour conditions or 3am conditions?
>> And since 75% of all internet pkts these days is spam your point is valid.
> Hardly.  I've still seen nobody provide any evidence that any of this insane 
> spam bandwidth directly affects the experience *any* of us have on the 'net.

Really... more spam = higher data usage = more bandwith use = provision 
more bandwith to avoid whinging customers = more cost

> important to any consumer.  If I'm getting what I pay for, and the price is 
> one I'm willing to pay, as a consumer I *don't care* how much of the 
> bandwidth I'm *not* getting is being used by spammers.  In fact, to be fair,

thats a rather irresponsible attitude.

> available increased.  Without them, the providers would still be charging us 
> the old rates.  I don't see anyone lining up to thank the spammers for making 
> home broadband affordable.  I remember a decade ago...   At home, I was 
> paying about five times what I currently pay for 10 megabits - just to get 
> dual-channel DSL. (128K)

10mb? try multi gigabit here.

>> SV is no worse then grey-listing in fact probably LESS, it causes more 
>> retries and bandwith yet nobody seems to have a problem with those that do
>> that.
> I mentioned that I had some misgivings about greylisting.  The most important 
> difference from a moral viewpoint is that greylisting only affects people who 
> are directly connecting to me, deliberately.  SAV affects people who never 
> tried to mail me.

right... now I see... you want to do it to waste others but get all hissy 
fitty when someone does a similar thing back, now I have no idea if you 
use greylisting now, but you could tomorrow be ordered to use it.

> None of my routers are named "core".  :P

when you have a couple dozen you tend to name them somthing that helps you 
rtmember whats what :)

> I think I've made it clear that it's not the volume of usage that bothers me 
> (although there have been days where I've gotten more connections from a SAV 
> flood than I did legitimate delivery attempts). It's the thoughtless, 
> selfishly justified actions of people who think it's ok to hammer my server 
> because it saves them bandwidth.

Again if you dont like it or dont want the risks.. well replacecore above 
with your routers name, chuck in an enable and a write command and you 
wont have to worry about it ever again :)

> there is no tangible benefit to *anyone* other than the user of SAV, and he's

Wrong, any carried out action to protect someones network by ensuring the 
inbound mail is from someone legitimate is a benefit to the receiver by 
helping reduce the chances of it being spam and hence wasteing more of 
their resources.

> with the rest of us, working to eliminate spam from our users lives - instead 
> of just telling them to "deal with it."

You've just contradicted yourself :)
you are in essence saying deal with it, by not wanting someone to run a 
measure they think benefits them.


Let Novell known what you think of their back door deal with the devil.
Sign the petition today:   http://techp.org/p/1/

More information about the MailScanner mailing list