perl script - bogofilter /smtp daemon

[Matthias Andree]

Robin Bowes <robin-lists at robinbowes.com> writes:

>>>As the OP said, good though bogofilter is, blocking as much spam as
>>>possible at the initial SMTP conversation is a Good Idea (tm).
>>
>> Yes, if you can avoid false positives. If flawed concepts such as
>> "SPF" or "DUL" or revengeful black lists are used, the whole concept
>> of email via SMTP is in danger.
>
> Personally, I think it is anyway. As long as mail can be sent via smtp 
> with little or no cost to the sender then the spam problem will just get 
> worse and worse until the whole infrastructure collapses.

We're way past the point where we could do anything about it without
purging all inherently insecure systems (those that were designed in
times where security was not a concern) from existence. What does a
spammer care if it's going to cost the sender if he can launch his spam
attack via hijacked computers?

Even the more useful kind of filtering (content-wise, rather than the
usual "where does it come from" junk filters, such as blacklists[*]) is,
I believe, just pushing the point a bit where _we_ as users
collapse. It's there, but we hide it.

I haven't seen statistics that would allow us to project when the
network load of spam rises too high. We're currently seeing the
introduction of DSL, Cable and other broadband connections, but for a
modem user, the still alive and kicking Swen aka. Gibe worms are a real
PITA due to their bare size. One clogs up like 150 kB, or half a minute
download time, and I'm still getting around a dozen or two a day.

And as long as users who "caught" a virus don't need to pay compensation
if they start spreading it, or spreading spam, and perhaps shift the
blame on their OS vendor if they _bought_ the OS, there is little
incentive for anyone to fix this. And we need to address this before we
can install a "let the sender pay for email" system.

-- 
Matthias Andree