Re: [Asrg] Passive Spam Revocation

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Mon, 26 October 2009 11:41 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 4C55B28C16F for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.929, 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 UBLpE-+JgBDD for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720623A67D1 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squonk.gsp.org (bltmd-207.114.17.122.dsl.charm.net [207.114.17.122]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n9QBfCrU027043 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:41:14 -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 n9QBd2Jj031266 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:39:02 -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 n9QBf7tW009410 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:41:07 -0400
Received: (from rsk@localhost) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n9QBf7Ou009409 for asrg@irtf.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:41:07 -0400
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:41:07 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: asrg@irtf.org
Message-ID: <20091026114107.GA8259@gsp.org>
References: <6679e0500910252145j69e51a6frb2cd90c86dff4bb4@mail.gmail.com> <20091026094358.GA32622@gsp.org> <4AE5750F.4000502@mines-paristech.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4AE5750F.4000502@mines-paristech.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Passive Spam Revocation
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: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:41:02 -0000

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:08:15AM +0100, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
> On the other hand, consider valid the hypothesis that spammers don't  
> know what kind of filter is being used (by some particular site) is also  
> a bad idea.

Oh, I agree.  It's long been known that [some] spammers have taken pains
to track the characteristics of target sites/systems/networks/etc.  And
some of those sites are (in various ways) "announcing" details of their
configuration to the outside world, which makes that task easier.

---Rsk