Re: [Asrg] ARF traffic, was Spam button scenarios

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 09 February 2010 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847F528C0FB for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:19:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ic48RiH9mgI for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:19:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8959728C0F2 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:19:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:20:22 +0100 id 00000000005DC031.000000004B71B576.00001A75
Message-ID: <4B71B575.7050107@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:20:21 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: asrg@irtf.org
References: <20100208150513.49394.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <0BF553ABE600903AE55F0E89@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> <4B718E2A.5070304@tana.it> <D0AC3DDE-3995-4EE9-9914-30E2831BAE22@blighty.com> <4B71A3D8.40401@tana.it> <4B71A96D.8060909@nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B71A96D.8060909@nortel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] ARF traffic, was Spam button scenarios
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:19:16 -0000

On 09/Feb/10 19:29, Chris Lewis wrote:
> Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> form abuse@domain is standardized by rfc 2142. Some people (e.g.
>> Abusix) may plan to send machine generated complaints at such addresses.
>
> And they'll learn very very soon that that doesn't work.
>
> Been there/done that in a limited fashion, and even in that limited
> fashion, it don't work.

Why not, _what_ goes wrong?

> Do NOT assume that TiS buttons have anything to do whatsoever with
> RFC2142, standardized role accounts, or whois "abuse-mailbox" entries.
>
> Filter tuning doesn't, nor do FBLs (ARF'd or otherwise). While abuse@
> _may_ get derivations of TiS reports via ARF in some specific cases that
> are pre-arranged in advance, in no sense should we encourage such role
> accounts to be target for a raw MUA (or even MTA) stream of complaints.

It seems to me that a simple filter could determine ARF/non-ARF 
quality of a message in a fraction of the time that spamassassing 
would take to process it, assuming abuse@ boxes are whitelisted.