From: Tony Earnshaw (no email)
Date: Thu Sep 01 2005 - 07:05:19 EDT
tor, 01.09.2005 kl. 06.59 skrev /dev/rob0:
[...]
> > I recommend everything in APNIC (especially: China, Korea, Taiwan,
> > Hong Kong), everything in AFRNIC (Africa, everywhere), plus blocking
> > France (who needs the French anyways?), and everywhere in South
> > America. I also find that 95% of random port-scanning attacks come
> > from China, Taiwan & Hong Kong, so simply denying ALL traffic from
> > these places is a big help.
>
> This is a bit of a pet peeve for me, and I've been around about it on
> SPAM-L quite a bit.
>
> Yes, it is true that many people and companies can safely bet that they
> will never miss any mail from any particular country. However, if you
> participate on global forums such as this, you *will* eventually lose
> real mail with that strategy.
>
> Is that a loss in the sense of missing something important? Who knows?
> My choice is to remain open so I can find out. Most email I get from my
> own country wouldn't be a real loss to miss out on, frankly.
>
> My main objection to country-level blocking is the lack of efficacy.
> There is no objective evidence to support the idea that blocking APNIC
> et al will do much to reduce spam. There IS objective evidence that by
> far the most spam in the world comes from the USA.
I agree entirely. I don't block any country ("who needs the French
anyways?" is ridiculous for a European, why not "who needs the
(Italians|Greeks|Dutch|British|Israelis|etc) anyways?" I block net
blocks and networks that have demonstrably sent nothing but spam and
have been gleaned using (j)whois. Plenty of these are in the US, few in
France etc. This all after (judiciously chosen) rbl checks.
[...]
--Tonni
-- mail: http://www.billy.demon.nl
|
|
|