Mailing List Message #7361
From: Bill Cole <>
Subject: Re: Address harvesting and secondary servers
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:20:56 -0500
To: SIMS Discussions <>
Re: Address harvesting and secondary servers
At 11:30 AM -0800 12/8/00, Tod Fitch  imposed structure on a stream of electrons, yielding:

I like the idea of sharing our local temp bans via local RBL DNS. But...

In my case I run QDNS Pro on the same machine as SIMS. I suspect some run their DNS on other machines or use other DNS servers. It would seem a big job to cover all the possible bases.

No need to, as there are standardized mechanisms for dynamic DNS. SIMS could offer the choices of either acting as a very limited DNS server for a blacklist zone OR submitting records to a nameserver that supports RFC2136.  It would be a really cool feature and might encourage developers of commercial DNS servers to add support for that mechanism.

The easiest way I see to implement this would be to have SIMS provide a built in RBL DNS server. In my case I would need a second IP address so that the SIMS RBL server could peacefully co-exist with my DNS server.

It's a fine option, but   I get the feeling that Stalker is resisting adding any support for discriminating between multiple IP's.

I suspect getting SIMS to correctly interact with an indefinite number of third party DNS servers would be too complicated to consider.

RFC2136 is not that complicated, really. It just looks that way.

Another interesting possibility: Have a RBL server somewhere that can automatically accept temp ban address harvesting entries from mail servers. Perhaps could be created.

Not my decision, but don't hold your breath.

MAPS  IS working on distributed-input collaborative spam-filtering methods, but this one looks unlikely to me for both technical and legal/policy reasons. maybe someone else implementing it well would generate assimilation interest (ala DUL and RSS) but I doubt this idea could be sold to MAPS management on paper.

Any entry submitted would be aged out in a short time, say 10 or 20 minutes. This would limit the impact on other innocent Internet users, so's normal verification process for additions would not be needed.

Yeah, right. And with a fast enough car, you don't need seat belts because you can maneuver away from any accident. Really.

MAPS would still be a potential defendant. This is why I doubt that such a system would appeal to MAPS in theory. Maybe someone should come up with a working model and prove it feasible...

Bill Cole                                  
Senior Consultant, MAPS L.L.C. Consulting Services Group (work) (personal)
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster