> -----Original Message-----
> From: ntisp-request@iea-software.com
> [mailto:ntisp-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of Kurt A. Butzin
> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 1999 12:18 PM
> To: ntisp@iea-software.com
> Subject: RE: [NTISP] Spam Filtering
>
>
> I believe that using reverse lookups for e-mail delivery is in
> violation of
> the RFC, but I not for sure on it. If so, this is going to cause some
> resistance to using it in some corporate IS departments.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ntisp-request@iea-software.com
> > [mailto:ntisp-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of David Payer
> > Sent: Sunday, March 07, 1999 8:43 AM
> > To: ntisp@iea-software.com
> > Subject: Re: [NTISP] Spam Filtering
> >
> >
> > >As for reverse DNS, the only thing I have seen where it is
> even remotely
> > >useful is for companies who use a reverse lookup in conjunction with a
> > whois
> > >trace to determine whether or not you are eligible to download a strong
> > >encryption product. And even then, all one needs is a shell
> > account in the
> > >U.S. to get around that.
> > >
> >
> > You are correct that those who know how to can easily bypass
> the issue of
> > screening against reverse lookups. But my point is this: the MAJORITY of
> > spam comes from those marketers who want to find a quick way to send out
> > multiple thousand emails. I did a review of logs for rejected
> > addresses and
> > tested many by telnetting back to port 25. Over 95% of those
> > tested did not
> > respond on that port. For the more dedicated spammers, the Real Time
> > Blackhole List filters will be helpful.
> >
> > My problem when I do filtering is that some corps use firewalls
> > and don't do
> > inverse addressing and then their workers send mail back to their home
> > account on our service and we reject it due to inverse addressing
> > filters. I
> > find that there are administrators who will reject you out of
> > hand regarding
> > setting up their network with this one precaution.
> >
> > I again assert, if we don't make efforts to stop spam ourselves, we will
> > have governmental assistance in doing that. This will come with an
> > accompanying tax to pay for administrating it. Once that mechanism is in
> > place, the influence will grow (remember: income tax was
> > originally never to
> > exceed 3%).
> >
> > OK </republican-jargon>
> >
> > David Payer
> >
> >
> > For more information about this list, including removal,
> > see this url: http://www.iea-software.com/maillist.html
> >
>
>
> For more information about this list, including removal,
> see this url: http://www.iea-software.com/maillist.html
>
For more information about this list, including removal,
see this url: http://www.iea-software.com/maillist.html