[anti-abuse-wg] Re: Additional Layers for Economic Incentives to improve Internet Security
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Additional Layers for Economic Incentives to improve Internet Security
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Additional Layers for Economic Incentives to improve Internet Security
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Tue Dec 28 12:06:59 CET 2010
In message <10122710090862_81BC at oregon.uoregon.edu>, "Joe St Sauver" <joe at oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote: >#But we already have blocklists aggressively doing that with netblocks >#(uceprotect, spamhaus etc). No serious mailprovider in my neighbourhood >#use those blocklists > >You must be in an unusual neighborhood since Spamhaus is generally >considered to protect about 1.4 billion mailboxes worldwide according >to http://www.spamhaus.org/organization/index.lasso Well, that's what the marketing department @ Spamhaus tells everybody anyway. I for one have never seen a single shread of proof to back up their rather exhorbitant claims in this regard however. But to return to the point at hand, no, generally Spamhaus _doesn't_ block big swaths of IP space... a fact for which I, at least, have criticised them repeatedly. They bend over backwards to be far far too lenient, in my opinion. Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Additional Layers for Economic Incentives to improve Internet Security
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Additional Layers for Economic Incentives to improve Internet Security
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]