From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 15 21:09:38 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3536816A49E for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:09:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from norgaard@locolomo.org) Received: from strange.daemonsecurity.com (59.Red-81-33-11.staticIP.rima-tde.net [81.33.11.59]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BCD343D78 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:09:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from norgaard@locolomo.org) Received: from [10.35.4.65] (65.4-35-10-static.chueca.wifi [10.35.4.65]) by strange.daemonsecurity.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1972E038; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:09:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4532A339.80104@locolomo.org> Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:08:09 +0200 From: Erik Norgaard User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060916) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erik Norgaard References: <45328A41.9040904@locolomo.org> In-Reply-To: <45328A41.9040904@locolomo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Beech Rintoul , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Ted Mittelstaedt Subject: Re: Non English Spam X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:09:38 -0000 Erik Norgaard wrote: > Ian Smith wrote: >> > So the ideal you mention is not an option until a complete public list >> > of authorized mail servers is available and all mail relayed through >> > these requires authentication. >> >> That's the 'solution' the mega players appear to be proposing. And who >> then authorises whom to run mailservers? What about, er, us? Shudder. > > I'm one of 'us' and honestly, I don't see why it should be OK to set up > a mail server without any possibility of identifying the owner or > responsible, nor do I see this as a big problem: Ironically, as if to stress the point, my reply to you got rejected (well you can find it in the archives), because my server is not on your (arbitrary) white list and the mail was not relayed through an authorized relay (mx2.freebsd.org). And I even pay extra to have a static ip, that resolves to a PTR containing the word "static" according to the IETF draft. And I actually accept connections from any server that plays by the RFC (the SMTP - strict) because I don't want to reject the large group of people who want to set up their on server... - so who is 'us'? Well, anyway, this only serves to enlighten another problem: That even if you find the solution to rejecting non-Roman non-FreeBSD mail while accepting everything from the list, people replying in those character sets will see their mail rejected because their mail doesn't go through the FreeBSD server. To avoid the above, we should recommend subscribers to the list to change their reply to when writing to the list, or configure their subscription such that mx2 will send mail regardless of the recipient being in the To/Cc header, or recommending users only to include the list as recipient... but we were against imposing rules - right? Wouldn't it be nice if there was a reliable way to determine legitimate sources...? Cheers, Erik -- Ph: +34.666334818 web: http://www.locolomo.org X.509 Certificate: http://www.locolomo.org/crt/8D03551FFCE04F0C.crt Key ID: 69:79:B8:2C:E3:8F:E7:BE:5D:C3:C3:B1:74:62:B8:3F:9F:1F:69:B9