[anti-abuse-wg] how to detect spambots - SPAMTrusted

Jørgen Hovland wrote:
> 
> 
> Jan Pieter Cornet wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 05:44:28PM +0100, Jørgen Hovland wrote:
>>   
>>> From many previous discussions I have a hard time believing that you will 
>>> ever reach consensus on the definition of what spam is. Trying to ban it 
>>>     
>>
>> Definition, yes. UBE is usually easier to define and is practically
>> equivalent to spam. But pretty much everyone recognizes a spam if they
>> see one. It is therefore easy for a human to detect spam and take
>> corrective action against a spammer or spamming host.
>>
>>   
> Thats where I believe you are not entirely correct. UBE is permitted in 
> my country (not all types of course, greasy ones etc). Yes, it is 

Well not in ours.
Our systems are getting misused, overloaded and we have to work against
it, this does cost time, resource and yes, money.

And other providers are responsible for it, where ever they reside, it
does not matter, legal issues can always be taken (ok, not really
practically to sue somebody in China, Russland or Turkey, but possible).

But at least: spamming is illegal in Germany, and any German provider
or provider in another country with similar regulations should be
forced to prevent his users from spamming.

> usually what you/I define as spam.
> However, some customers still want it (I sometimes monitor whitelists in 
> order to correct blacklists).
> Who are we to override the end-users decisions? Only the government 
> should do that, and sometimes even they shouldn't.

Surely it should be up to the end user, if he likes
to have a spam filter on its incoming mail, but thats not the
point.

You can scan any incoming mail, just to see, if its originated
from your own dial-in IPs, that all.
You do not need to modify any received mail.
Scanning must be done automatically and thats even legal
in Germany ;o)

>>> With regards to a valid contact email address, not valid abuse 
>>> emailaddress, I still believe that it should be optional.
>>>     
>>
>> What should be optional? The abuse address? The contact address? The
>> validity? I think it's very reasonable to require all netblocks to have
>> a valid contact email address.
>>
>>   
> Any email address. Yes it is reasonable, but I still think it should be 
> optional. Thats also what we decided last time the topic was brought up.

Jesus, no !
That is simply wrong because it will raise even more ignorance to abuse.
An address or phone number is not enough.
What are doing, when somebody abuses your servers ?
Atacks and hacks them, infiltrate webservers with viruses ?

Send a letter mail ?
Get in an airplane ?
Phone somebody wich only speaks a foreign language ?

No, a real abuse-field is a must and it MUST be read, and it must
be possible to proof, that somebody reacts.

> Perhaps people have changed their opinion now. I was actually amazed 
> that the suggestion to make it mandatory was rejected.
> 
> 
>> (PS- Jørgen: your mail server rejected my direct message to you. You
>> may want to fix that)
>>  
>>   
> It gets fixed by the system when I send you this email. I get ~8000 spam 
> daily. I have to be a little strict :-)

See ?
So you are against a mandatory field ?

Im getting only 2-5 spams a day, that really reach me.
2000 are getting blocked or sorted out straight away.
But the time for these filters just ruins us all.


Kind regards, Frank

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 


-- 

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
--
PHADE Software - PowerWeb                       http://www.powerweb.de
Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast             mailto:frank at powerweb.de
Schinkelstrasse 17                                fon: +49 33200 52920
14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany             fax: +49 33200 52921
======================================================================
Public PGP Key available for frank at powerweb.de