[Mimedefang] Another silly idea

[WBrown at e1b.org]

mimedefang-bounces at lists.roaringpenguin.com wrote on 05/03/2006 05:19:31 
AM:

> Effectively, a certificate system would be the same as a whitelist - the
> owner of the system has to take action to have it recognised as a valid 
mail
> server. 

Sounds like SPF...  "Owner taking action..." to register SPF record.  Some 
now consider that to be a sign of spam.

> The problem with a certificate system is that I have to be able to
> check the validity of the certificate.  99.99% of home users would have 
no
> idea of how to register their system as a mail server, which is fine, as 
they
> also have no idea of how to run a mail server anyway, and wouldn't want 
to
> even if they had it explained to them, since their ISP does the job for 
them
> and they are already paying for this service.

...and don't run a mail server and don't send direct to my MX unless they 
are infected and if their PC ends up on a virus blacklist, who cares?

My proposal was not to tackle the differences between Dynamic vs. static 
mail senders.  I was just thinking that the sending of viruses was a 
precursor to the same system sending spam, which might sneak in just below 
your spam threshold.  Detect the virus, block the subsequent spam.  Also, 
save CPU detecting the future viruses from the same machine.  And as an 
added benefit, ISPs would start running AV software on their mail servers 
and start blocking the malware closer to the source.