On 09/Jun/11 00:48, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> What I believe domain-level reputation is better for doing is
> identifying sources of good mail, and giving them preferential
> treatment.
Yes, whitelisting betters communication latency due to greylisting,
and can help avoid false positives. The question is how an MTA
measures the "whitelistability" of signing domains. Perhaps domains
that users often choose as targets, and seldom compare in
abuse-reports are good candidates for whitelisting.
> And, as a final point, the set of "good" domains isn't affected by
> filters that reject spam or bad IP addresses, because they aren't on
> that list anyway.
OTOH, a server might get on a DNSBL by accident, e.g. because it
shares a NAT address with a spammer. An MTA who whitelisted such a
domain based on its internal measurements, can still accept their
mail, despite the blacklisting, if it wants to.
Of course, organizations running multiple MTAs are expected to
configure whitelisting coherently. Thus, they may want to implement
an internal reputation-query protocol. However, sharing reputation
data across different organizations may pose some semantics questions,
similar to the before-or-after-RBL-filtering discussed recently on
this list.
Received on Thu Jun 09 2011 - 18:08:37 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Mon Oct 29 2012 - 23:20:18 PST