nanog mailing list archives
Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats
From: Chris Boyd <cboyd () gizmopartners com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 21:27:17 -0600
On Jan 9, 2013, at 8:58 PM, Julian DeMarchi wrote:
This is the first RBL I have seen list a /24 for lack of PTRs. Not for sending spam, but just PTRs alone. How do you explain this to your customer?
We're small shop, but our policy is not to accept email from addresses without PTRs. And we have a long list of pool/dhcp/dyn/resnet PTRs we don't accept mail from as well. I tried SpamRats a few years ago, but found them to have too many false positives. Then, they were trying to be early detectors of spam orginiating from static IP cable/DSL customers. Good idea, but poorly executed in operation. --Chris
Current thread:
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats, (continued)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Mark Andrews (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats John R. Levine (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Mark Andrews (Jan 09)
- PTRs for IPv6 (was Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats) Lee Howard (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Måns Nilsson (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats John Levine (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Robert Bonomi (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Tony Finch (Jan 11)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats JP Viljoen (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Owen DeLong (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Julian DeMarchi (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Rich Kulawiec (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Barry Shein (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Julian DeMarchi (Jan 09)