from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FFB144159
	for <jm@localhost>; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:46:45 -0400 (EDT)
from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:46:45 +0100 (IST)
from usw-sf-list2.sourceforge.net (usw-sf-fw2.sourceforge.net
    [216.136.171.252]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
    g7QFYmZ29978 for <jm-sa@jmason.org>; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:34:49 +0100
from usw-sf-list1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.13]
    helo=usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net) by usw-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with
    esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17jLsS-00026y-00; Mon,
    26 Aug 2002 08:34:04 -0700
from tisch.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.157]) by
    usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id
    17jLrj-0004FI-00 for <spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net>;
    Mon, 26 Aug 2002 08:33:19 -0700
from user-105nd99.dialup.mindspring.com ([64.91.181.41]
    helo=belphegore.hughes-family.org) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp
    (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17jLrg-0001cc-00; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:33:16 -0400
from balam.hughes-family.org (balam.hughes-family.org
    [10.0.240.3]) by belphegore.hughes-family.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id
    6DD56A4D20; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 08:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Re: Whitelisting (Re: [SAtalk] SA In The News)
From spamassassin-talk-admin@lists.sourceforge.net  Mon Aug 26 16:47:05 2002

There is a whitelist RBL now!  Ironport's Bonded Sender is
basically a whitelist RBL where you post a bond to get on the
list, and then lose the bond if you end up spamming from that IP
address (or something like that).  http://www.bondedsender.org/
C
On Sunday, August 25, 2002, at 07:58  PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>> 4. DNSBL: Only certifies an ip address, not who is using it. As it is
>> currently used, DNSBL allows you to look up if some IP address
>> has been
>> blacklisted by someone. What I haven't seen is a service that
>> provides a
>> DNS based whitelist.
>
> There's a practical reason for that:  Any DNS list (white or
> black) works
> only for a limited number of IPs; the set of unlisted IPs is
> much larger
> than the set in the DNS list.  If you have to make a binary decision to
> accept or reject, you'll be wrong less often if you reject the
> blacklist
> and accept everything else, rather than accept the whitelist and reject
> everything else.
>
> A whitelist is only helpful when (a) you only want mail from a limited
> number of known sources, or (b) you can use a secondary system
> like SA to
> decide what to do with the vast unlisted masses.  Most MTAs still make
> only the binary decision, because the secondary computation is
> expensive.
>
> With SA's cooperation, though, it might be worth a try.  Even better if
> one could get commercial anti-spam outfits to agree to factor it in.
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
cell phone?  Get a new here for FREE!
https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
Spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk