What would be 'best practice' or 'acceptable' methods of collecting
spammer data?

I'm familiar with the notion of unused honeypots, feeds from ISP's, PBL's
where dynamic ranges should never be seen to spit, and even Claus and the
550 'no such user' squatting of old domains. What methods are considered
to be legitimate ways of harvesting spamer data. Pro's, con's of each
method?

As far as honeypots go, what is best practice? Is it so that the domain
should never have been used for legitimate business or should offer a
period of 'no such usering' to all traffic and then consider any attempts
to connect as spam?

Not to pick on Claus, but someone said he published a list of honeypots
(which rather seems to defeat the point - but I suspect there is a method
in the madness).
--
political correctness: The safety net protecting deaf blind disabled
ethnic minority gays & lesbians with odd religious beliefs from reality

.a scythe.
Or as the mice put it, properly prepared, diced.

I prefer to track botnets by simply watching the RDNS.  Passive
and can be instantly fed to blocklists.

Active methods, while productive, should be limited so they do
not cross the line into abuse.

--
rbg

Objection on behalf of all mice in the barn.

Indiscriminate harvesting of spammer data is not allowed.

The barn can only hold so much with all the cows, sheep, goats and the
odd mouse.

Everybody needs to eat more spam before we have room for anymore spammer
data.

--
Anony Mouse
Herbal King Ledger
#198345 27/10/2009 Business Expenses (DIA) $150,000.00 $3,498,005.08

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:31:10 +1300, John Smith ate alphabet spaghetti and
shat out:

Mice prefer Meatloaf - SPAM has too much actual meat content in it.

--
political correctness: The safety net protecting deaf blind disabled
ethnic minority gays & lesbians with odd religious beliefs from reality