MTAMark Re: MTX plugin functionally complete?

[Da...@ChaosReigns.com]

On 02/14, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/draft/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark/

> Personally I think it is a great idea and anything to help combat the
> spam is always a worthwhile effort.  Is it possible to resurrect that
> proposal and worth with the original authors and perhaps combine the
> efforts ?

To paraphrase Ayn Rand, stop asking "Can I?" and start asking "Who is going
to stop me?"  It's important.

Implement it.  Get people to use it.  Figure out how the RFC process works
and push it through.


I have to say keep in mind that MTAMark does not tie the spam to a
domain, and MTX does, which makes it easier to track down the spammer,
and blacklist by domain instead of IP.

-- 
"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries of life disappear and
life stands explained." - Mark Twain
http://www.ChaosReigns.com

Re: MTAMark Re: MTX plugin functionally complete?

[Per Jessen <pe...@computer.org>]

Darxus@ChaosReigns.com wrote:

> I have to say keep in mind that MTAMark does not tie the spam to a
> domain, and MTX does, which makes it easier to track down the spammer,
> and blacklist by domain instead of IP.

I'm not quite sure what that means:  how does MTX tie spam to a domain? 

Regardless, your proposal and MTAmark clearly have a lot in common, to
me it seems to make a lot of sense to work with the two guys who wrote
that RFC.  Purpose - leverage their work, perhaps merge your two
proposals, and most importantly: find out why MTAmark never really took
off.


/Per Jessen, Zürich