RE: SMTP rate-limits [Was: Re: ingress SMTP]

[Frank Bulk]

Can anyone comment authoritatively on the percentage of spam that's from a
leaky faucet compared to fire hose?  The stuff I see in my customer base are
all fire hoses at the rate of 2.5, sometimes 5 message connection attempts
per second. (I bet an academic could study the rate of spam emissions from a
certain IP to identify their upstream bandwidth).

Frank

-Original Message-
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:46 AM
To: Paul Ferguson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SMTP rate-limits [Was: Re: ingress SMTP]

snip 

I thought that these bot nets were so massive that it is pretty
easy for them to fly under the radar for quotas, rate limiting, etc.
Not that all bot nets are created equal, and there aren't local hot
spots for whatever reason, but putting on the brakes in a way that
users wouldn't feel pain is simply not going to make any appreciable
difference in the overall mal-rate.

No?

   Mike

Re: SMTP rate-limits [Was: Re: ingress SMTP]

[Tony Finch]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Michael Thomas wrote:

 I thought that these bot nets were so massive that it is pretty
 easy for them to fly under the radar for quotas, rate limiting, etc.
 Not that all bot nets are created equal, and there aren't local hot
 spots for whatever reason, but putting on the brakes in a way that
 users wouldn't feel pain is simply not going to make any appreciable
 difference in the overall mal-rate.

Right.

In practice the rate of delivery failures is a more useful indication of
spam than the overall email rate.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://dotat.at/
IRISH SEA: NORTHEASTERLY BACKING NORTHERLY 6 TO GALE 8, BUT CYCLONIC 5 IN
SOUTH AT FIRST. MODERATE BECOMING ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD.