On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 01:44:09PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote: > Keith Moore wrote: > > ...at the cost of dropping legitimate traffic. the thing is, the set of > > valid senders for you and the set of valid senders for everyone at cisco > > is very different, and the latter set is much fuzzier. and those > > reputation services won't take responsibility for the mail that you lose > > by trusting them, nor are they accountable to the senders either. > > > > this is not a way to make the network more robust. > > > Robust for what? Spammers? The simple fact of the matter is that the > alternative is to just shut down port 25 given the growth in both volume > and complexity to filter. That ain't robust either. Dealing with false > positives is the cost of doing business on the internet these days. Welcome > to reality. http://fm.vix.com/internet/security/superbugs.html --gregbo _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf