dccm feature request

Vernon Schryver vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com
Fri May 21 16:43:55 UTC 2004


> From: Kelsey Cummings 

> Here's my situation.  I've only be able to get a rather high limit (1000

> nice if I could define a reject level for mail sourced from the webservers
> at 10, or 20 which would have a pronounced affect at dropping outbound
> spam.
>
> One way to accomplish this would be to define classes of users/hosts that
> have differing thresholds.  Untrusted, with a very low limit, trusted, with
> a reasonable limit for 'normal' use within our AUP, and Whitelisted, for
> allowed bulk senders. 

1000 does not sound like a high limit, and 10-20 seems awfully low.

Don't most spam spews involve at least rates 10 and generally 1000 
times higher than 1000 messags/day?

Aren't users who send jokes or party invitations to a couple dozen
friends common?

Why worry about spews of spam that consist of no more than a few
dozen copies? 

Why distinguish between "untrustd" and "trusted with a reasonable
limit"?  Won't most of the trusted users be running Windows, and so
vulnerable to the Microsoft exploit of the hour, and so be untrustworthy?

I don't understand why a threshold of 7000 messags/week/IP address
would not serve.  (assuming statically assigned IP addresses)


Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com



More information about the DCC mailing list

Contact vjs@rhyolite.com by mail or use the form.