From: vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com
In article ,
Barry Margolin wrote:
>I'm just going by what I read. Maybe it was a year or two ago, someone
>posted (maybe it was on NANOG, I'm not sure) that when they put a bogus
>A record on their domain their incoming spam dropped significantly. I
>agree that it's ridiculous, I can't imagine spammers falling for such a
>simple trick, but that's what he said.
Some people are as crazy about spam numbers as "hot" lottery numbers.
There have always been people who fail to bath, see a drop in spam, and
conclude that body odor is the final ultimate solution to the spam
problem (FUSSP). There are persistent kooks flogging not having either
MX or A RRs. If they'd get together and combine their ideas they might
have something, but until then their claims are as accurate as the spam
for male enhancement pills. It is true that some spammers invert the
standard precedence and that you can use that, perhaps treating port
25 on your A RR as a spam trap such as the bit bucket, Bayesian weights,
or DCC checksums. If you have much of a spam load, this won't do much
good, much as the pills do not and cannot make anything longer or thicker
but might help a little with performance problems.
I pretty sure I've seen one of the no A/MX FUSSP vendors in
comp.protocols.tcp-ip. I think I've also seen one on NANOG, which has
its own versions of the Super TCP/IP Expert who doesn't know that
distinct kinds of service are called "dedicated hosting" and is shocked
and horrified that when he willingly installs software to help a consumer
ISP troubleshoot his complaint, he gets an industry standard remote
hands application.
Note that a missing or bogus A RR differs from an A RR that points to
a spam trap. One tactic tells spammers "Try the MX addresses" while
the other says "Ok, you've successfuly hit this domain."
Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
