[Gllug] spews blacklist

[Alex]

Might SPEWS not argue that if whois on a netblock was more up-to-date, or
at least more fine-grained, then "collateral damage" would be minimised? I
could at least see the reasoning behind this, to some extent.

Mind you, that is academic. SPEWS is not a real-world solution to UCE, as
I'm sure someone has already said!


Alex



>
> it does add another interesting dimension to the selection criteria for an
> ISP/hosting/colo company.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/30881.html
> Critics set up anti-SPEWS Web site
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Spews+group:news.admin.net-abuse.email&hl=
> en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=apou6a%24nf6%241%40slb0.atl.mindspring.net&rnu
> m=2
> ... As a result, we have found that the list frequently
> contains many IP addresses from which spam has NEVER originated. SPEWS
> supporters justify this as "collateral damage," and say that it forces
> ISPs
> to stop spammers by turning their legitimate customers against them...
>



-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug