nanog mailing list archives
RE: Anti-spam System Idea
From: "Tim Thorpe" <tim () cleanyourdirt com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:35:54 -0800
Seeing as this system would directly impact network operators (the NO in naNOg) I must disagree. If Merit's staff feels otherwise then I sincerely apologize and will of course move the discussion, I will limit the out of context chatter to a minimum however. Tthorpe opusnet
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen () sprunk org] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 8:00 PM To: Tim Thorpe Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes Subject: Re: Anti-spam System Idea This topic has been consistently ruled off-topic for NANOG by Merit's staff. Please respect those of us who don't want to hear about spam here. For those interested, the IRTF's ASRG is actively studying anti-spam techniques and I'm sure they'd be interested in hearing all of your ideas (after you verify they haven't been tried before). http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html S Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Thorpe" <tim () cleanyourdirt com> To: <nanog () merit edu> Sent: Saturday, 14 February, 2004 02:30 Subject: Anti-spam System IdeaI wanted to run this past you to see what you thought of itand get somefeedback on pro's and cons of this type of system. I have been thinking recently about the ever increasingamount of spam thatis flooding the internet, clogging mail servers, and ingeneral pissing usall off. I think it time to do something about it. very few systemsare effective atblocking spam at the server level, and the ones that existhave a less thenstellar reputation and are not very effective on top of that. 95% of spam comes through relays and its headers are forgedtracking anE-mail back that you've received is becoming next toimpossible, its alsovery time consuming and why waste your time on scumbags? my idea; a DC network that actively scans for active relays andtests them, itcompiles a list on a daily basis of compromised IPaddresses (or evenaddresses that are willingly allowing the relay) makingthis list freelyavailable to ISPs via a secure and tracked site. to test a relay you actually have to send mail through it, I have asolutionfor this as well, the clients are set to e-mail a certainaddress thatchanges daily the E-mails are signed with a crypto key to verify authenticity (that way spammers can't abuse the address ifit doesn't havethe key, it get canned) work with ISP's to correct issues on their network helpcompletely blacklist IP's from their network that are operating as an open relay and redirect to a page that alerts them of the compromise andsolutions to fixthe problem. the only way people are going to become awareof securityissues such as this is if something happens that wakes themup, if theycan't access a % of the web it would hopefully clue them in. because these scans only need to take place once per IP perday and over alarge distribution of computers performing the tests, Idon't see networkload becoming a big issue, no bigger then it currently is. the only way to fight spammers is to squeeze them out of hiding, andthat'swhat I hope this system would be designed to do. I do not have the coding knowledge to do this I will needcoders, I do havethe PR skills to work with ISPs. I am also working with mycongresswoman topave the way for legal clearance for this program. I would greatly appreciate your input on this and anythingI may haveoverlooked. I would also like to know if this would be a DCprogram youwould run. a lot of people argue the practical application of DC.although we knowdifferently this project would show them what DC can do forthem and wakethem up to perhaps other DC projects.
Current thread:
- Re: Clueless service restrictions (was RE: Anti-spam System Idea), (continued)
- Re: Clueless service restrictions (was RE: Anti-spam System Idea) John Kristoff (Feb 17)
- Re: Clueless service restrictions (was RE: Anti-spam System Idea) Todd Vierling (Feb 17)
- Re: Clueless service restrictions (was RE: Anti-spam System Idea) Dave Crocker (Feb 18)
- RE: Clueless service restrictions (was RE: Anti-spam System Idea) Tony Hain (Feb 18)
- Re: Clueless service restrictions (was RE: Anti-spam System Idea) Guðbjörn S . Hreinsson (Feb 18)
- Re: Clueless service restrictions (was RE: Anti-spam System Idea) Dave Crocker (Feb 18)
- Re: Clueless service restrictions (was RE: Anti-spam System Idea) Guðbjörn S . Hreinsson (Feb 18)
- Re: Anti-spam System Idea Sean Donelan (Feb 15)
- Re: Anti-spam System Idea Tim Wilde (Feb 15)
- RE: Anti-spam System Idea Tim Thorpe (Feb 15)
- Re: Anti-spam System Idea Etaoin Shrdlu (Feb 15)
- Re: Anti-spam System Idea Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 15)
- Spam issue discussion lists [was Re: Anti-spam System Idea] Mark Jones (Feb 16)
- Re: Anti-spam System Idea Petri Helenius (Feb 14)
- RE: Anti-spam System Idea Tim Thorpe (Feb 14)
- Re: Anti-spam System Idea Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 15)