Re: [Asrg] [ASRG] SMTP pull anyone?

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Thu, 27 August 2009 11:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rsk@gsp.org>
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 B554B28C370 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 YhDPX6IRim8x for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE8728C1A6 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squonk.gsp.org (bltmd-207.114.25.206.dsl.charm.net [207.114.25.206]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n7RBTNnr023836 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:29:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (avatar.gsp.org [192.168.0.11]) by squonk.gsp.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n7RBLHnl017292 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:21:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-4) with ESMTP id n7RBTHGO016719 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:29:17 -0400
Received: (from rsk@localhost) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n7RBTHVW016718 for asrg@irtf.org; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:29:17 -0400
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:29:17 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <20090827112917.GA16635@gsp.org>
References: <45ae90370908260906t223ea020g1e964670fad7ef0d@mail.gmail.com> <20090826180601.79333.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <20090826222105.GA24507@gsp.org> <45ae90370908262017n455c0d0dg605ae81278792c80@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <45ae90370908262017n455c0d0dg605ae81278792c80@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] [ASRG] SMTP pull anyone?
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: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:29:19 -0000

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:17:28PM -0400, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
> So, if one were willing to accept that there will be valid IPv6 MTA
> based connections, and the practicality of using IPv4 methods is no
> longer feasible, then your list would be composed of only SMTP
> envelope and body checks?

Hmmm.  At the moment, it sure looks that way.  Happily (at the moment)
those methods do a very good job: roughly 85% of total spam rejected
is rejected by those means before any IPv4 methods are used.  But I
have to guess that this percentage will decline and that I'm going to
need to revisit/revise this.

---Rsk