[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>
- Re: [Fwd: Meta-issue: recent spam surge],
Greg A. Woods <=