> exactly. it is quite amazing that such corporate "committee"-decided > policy actually has interest vs weasally, toothless play-it-safe. > Let's see if they have the conviction to put some bite into behind > their bark.
Yes, let's! But let's not pretend that they ever talked about PTR-based, regex-based blocking claimed to have negligible FPs--or _any_ other method claimed to have negligible FPs. No, they specifically say that their tactics will (a) block entire ISPs, and (b) will, by obvious definition, have as many FPs as are possible. So by no means is ASTA making a "recommendation," as you took it, that small shops can and should block abusive ISPs selectively with minimal FPs. It's the complete opposite: it's that huge shops can afford to block non-selectively and may do so in future. This is not a new industry-standard prescription, _not_ the public assurance that a PTR- and RegEx method or any other may be deployed anywhere without hugely negative consequences for the deployers. ASTA's current position paper is just plain _irrelevant_ to your ruleset--however positive your clients' experience has been or how dangerous it appears to others. --Sandy ------------------------------------ Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.mailmage.com/products/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/download/release/ Defuse Dictionary Attacks: Turn Exchange Addresses into IMail Aliases! http://www.mailmage.com/products/software/freeutils/exchange2aliases/download/release/ To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
