RE: ORBS (Re: Scanning)

So, you aren't happy when I build a poisoned cake for spammers, you want me
to use your specific recipe... even if mine works (better?). Tell me how a
MAPS-blocked system can relay spam.

Yes, I'll concede that your approach may work, albeit at higher HW cost than
my approach.

BTW, the MHSC answer to our ORBS listing last year is to drop sendmail and
build an MS-Exchange server so that we can authenticate with Win2K Domain
logins. But, that's very expensive and doesn't scale well. We also support
both PPTP and SSH VPN tunnels. There are obvious problems with both, as I've
discovered in practice.

1. Seat license costs with Exchange (scaling issues).
2. Unless very carefully run, Exchange has serious security issues.
3. Exchange is good groupware for corps and way too much for normal users.
4. Many firewalls block any and all tunneling technology.
5. POP-based solutions demand widespread deployment of POPs. If a user is
out of POP range, they have to make LD calls. Plus there is an incremental
HW cost per POP. If one has a largish number of POPs this is significant
addition to the out-of-range LD charges that one still incurrs.

Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 10:24:57 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>

So, you aren't happy when I build a poisoned cake for spammers, you want
me to use your specific recipe... even if mine works (better?). Tell me

Explain how yours works on the same level or better.

how a MAPS-blocked system can relay spam.

Nobody claimed that it could. Tell me what percentage of open relays are
listed in MAPS.

MAPS does not probe like ORBS does. By its more conservative nature, much
more spam gets by MAPS than ORBS. Is this good? Is it bad? Judgement
call.

Yes, I'll concede that your approach may work, albeit at higher HW cost
than my approach.

Let's factor in the cost of wasted bandwidth when one gets hijacked, and
the cost of having an MX handle the extra spam traffic.

Eddy