IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asrg] Report-as-Spam header

Brendan Hide <brendan@swiftspirit.co.za> Mon, 11 June 2012 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <brendan@swiftspirit.co.za>
X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79E5621F845F for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HS_INDEX_PARAM=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IlzQv6EvQBaz for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fw10a.glodns.net (fw10a.glodns.net [196.220.48.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E007021F8617 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by fw10a.glodns.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78DFF250044 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:52:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at fw10a.glodns.net
Received: from fw10a.glodns.net ([196.220.48.58]) by localhost (fw10a.glodns.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id aiSF+I5U20AS for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:52:07 +0200 (SAST)
Received: from control.glodns.net (smtp1w.glodns.net [75.126.138.3]) by fw10a.glodns.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B71250261 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:52:07 +0200 (SAST)
Received: (qmail 12515 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2012 20:52:06 +0200
Received: from blvd-cr1-nat1.wa.co.za (HELO watricky.invalid.co.za) (196.220.32.228) by smtp1b.plesk.glodns.net with SMTP; 11 Jun 2012 20:52:03 +0200
Message-ID: <4FD63E4F.3020006@swiftspirit.co.za>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:51:59 +0200
From: Brendan Hide <brendan@swiftspirit.co.za>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <4FD4CAA4.5050006@swiftspirit.co.za> <6.2.5.6.2.20120610123350.0939fc28@resistor.net> <4FD567DB.2080407@swiftspirit.co.za> <6.2.5.6.2.20120611012901.09858498@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120611012901.09858498@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Report-as-Spam header
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:52:26 -0000

Hi, SM

You've made some good points I'll be considering. Thank you for your 
comments thus far. :)

On 06/11/12 11:05, SM wrote:
>> Better First Response against compromised accounts
> Advantages:
> That only works if both sides are proactive.  That's rare in practice 
> as abuse handling is an expense people would prefer not to have.
In my case we're proactive and the current process is expensive on man 
hours. Automation would be more cost-effective.

-- 
__________
Brendan Hide
Web Africa - Internet Business Solutions
http://www.webafrica.co.za/?AFF1E97

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email