[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fwd: Meta-issue: recent spam surge]

From: Greg A. Woods
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Meta-issue: recent spam surge]
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:23:16 -0400 (EDT)

[ On Friday, October 26, 2001 at 11:29:43 (-0400), Derrick Norris wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Meta-issue: recent spam surge]
> My main box at home runs FreeBSD and is configured to use local sendmail for 
> outgoing because some of the other lists I subscribe to used to bounce my 
> messages due to brain-damaged ISP not having reverse DNS for their 
> mailservers, while reverse DNS on their dialup and DSL accounts works.  This 
> makes me a "dynamically addressed port" which _is_ a source of "legitimate 
> authorised SMTP connections."  Or so I would think, since those lists stopped 
> bouncing my messages after I switched to my own sendmail.

Whether or not your use of SMTP on a dynamicly addressed port is
legitimate or not is not up to you to decide -- that's strictly your
ISP's right.

Sounds to me though that you do NOT have any legitimate right, nor need,
to use outbound SMTP on your dial-up account.

Indeed "broadband" users can spam very effectively if they are not
generally blocked, and it is simple and easy to block them and stupid
not to.

> I have always thought that blacklisting ISP dialup etc. ports was a bad idea 
> -- those not running Windows are often prevented from using all the services 
> their OS provides due to attempts to block spam.

Just because your system happens to support a certain network service
doesn't mean you must be permitted to use it.  My system has tools to
effectively perform denial of service attacks against anyone.  Should I
be permitted to use them just because I have them?

On the other hand in this specific example of SMTP there's no loss of
service to anyone using a dynamic dial-up port.  Your ISP has assigned
an authorised SMTP relay host for your use.  Use it!

> I personally would rather see a spam hit a list occasionally, rather than 
> have a legitimate user post bounced and followed up by a post asking why 
> which starts a thread about the whole thing again.  That can be a worse hit 
> on signal-to-noise ratio than the spam itself.

You're certainly allowed your opinion, but I certainly will never agree
with that particular point of view!  ;-)

                                                        Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <address@hidden>     <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>;   Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]