On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Jeff Chan wrote: > > Yes Eric and I discussed this approach, and I know others have > also, but I tend to think it could be overbroad and could catch > too many innocent domains. For example, a non-rogue ISP who got > burned by a spamming (ex-)customer could poison the legitimate > domains of all their other customers who use the same name > servers. > > Our feeling is that addressing the *domains that actually > appear in spam* is more direct and therefore much less prone > to collateral damage.
Yes, this is why you have to be careful about the nameservers that are blacklisted. They must be controlled by spammers rather than merely used by spammers, which is why the SBL is an appropriate blacklist for this purpose. -- Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/
