🚀 go-pugleaf

nick@zeta.org.au (Nick Andrew) writes:

>In <4vj6cq$aql@grivel.une.edu.au> dbromage@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage) writes:

>>moneyworld.com is now being served through psi.net, who are known to
>>ignore spam complaints.

>Oh no ... just when I thought they were being permanently kicked off the Net
>once their MCI contract ran out.

>>All sites should be set to refuse SMTP connections from both domains.

>I don't think it'll work. Let's assume I filter packets from their
>network at my main router. Their SMTP connections fail, so they look at
>the DNS and go to the next best MX record for my domain. Now I have to
>ask my forwarding hosts to block packets at their own routers. (which they
>might or might not do).

True. Furthermore they also send via third-party smtp servers. I note
for example that your mail server will happily act as an SMTP server
for me to send mail off to some distant location. You might be able to
fix your mail server, but how about the other 100,000 SMTP servers out
there. A quick DNS search of .com and .edu should dig up the odd one
or two poorly administered servers.

>I think there are only 2 effective defences:

Neither of which work if the mail has forged or bogus From: addresses
and/or is sent from open 3rd-party mail servers.

Of course forged headers are perfect for spam if your main goal is to
get the recipient to read the body on the mail and click on a URL. The
spammer doesn't need a reply mail, they don't even need to run an SMTP
server - monyworld certainly weren't running one last time I looked.

>2. Have the mailer accept E-mail from that domain and silently bitbucket it.

Any scheme you think up has to have wide-spread use to affect the
moneyworlds of the world and, any such scheme is just as easy to work
around. The real answer requires technology and policy not (yet)
available on the net.

What, with lot's of naive players running lots of trusting software,
the internet of the 90s must be getting pretty close to spam heaven.


Regards.