R: R: [jdev] about spim techniques

[Ian Paterson]

Trejkaz wrote:
> The problem with blacklisting is that it 
> assumes all new servers are innocent.  
> A spammer gets to run amok until they're 
> caught, and then change hostnames.
> 
> A combination of whitelisting and 
> blacklisting would be more effective.  
> Server admins apply to a central 
> authority (e.g. the JSF) to get on the 
> whitelist.

The power of a single central authority would be open to abuse in the
future.

If we really have to maintain server whitelists (I hope we don't), then
multiple 'independent' authorities based in different parts of the world
would be more acceptable.

[Of course the JSF would be better than a large corporation, like
Google. Only whitelisted servers would attract users, so the corporation
could effectively control the network!]

> The application process 
> must not discriminate, but must take
> some time, so that it discourages repeated
> applications.  That way, new servers 
> are assumed guilty, and the only way
> spam gets to users is if the spam 
> server's admin took the time to register
> their server.  That server then gets 
> blacklisted, and they have to wait a 
> whole new week to register again.

What stops a spimer registering more servers before the first one is
blacklisted?

- Ian