From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Dec 28 13:20:42 2002 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 456C137B401 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 13:20:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from analog.databits.net (analog.databits.net [198.78.65.155]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E33643F13 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 13:20:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from petef@analog.databits.net) Received: (qmail 28239 invoked by uid 1000); 28 Dec 2002 21:17:52 -0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 13:17:52 -0800 From: Pete Fritchman To: Harry Tabak Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. Message-ID: <20021228211752.GB52972@absolutbsd.org> References: <3E0DAAF3.7090103@quadtelecom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E0DAAF3.7090103@quadtelecom.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG (please tell me this is just a dream, and this thread really isn't happening and I am not participating...) ++ 28/12/02 08:45 -0500 - Harry Tabak: | I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross | posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues -- The list appropriate for this is freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, and I'm not sure this even belongs on a FreeBSD mailing list. | I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported | package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me | to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll | probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a | freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't | be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest | that you check it out.] It's a port. A 3rd-party package, FreeBSD does not control, but provides if a user wants it. It is not FreeBSD's position to say "this port does poorly" -- that is up to the user. If somebody blindly installs this port without looking at what it actually does, or knowing it blindly blocks mail from large IP blocks, that is the user's problem. Unfortunatly, we can't control the IQ of our users. If my IP block was listed in spambnc, and I couldn't communicate with someone because they chose to use spambnc without knowing the semi-evil things it does, quite frankly I probably am lucky I don't have to communicate with said person. | me. They vouch for Inflow. They don't recommend it, but for a fee, my | service could be switched to a different PVC, and I'd get an address | from a different carrier. But of course, the new address could be | black-listed on a whim. If it's that important to you, do it. You have discovered the big problem in spam filtering and mail flow on the Internet. It is discussed over and over on more appropriate lists (spam-l, inet-access, nanog, etc). The conclusion is eventually the same every time: yes, in a perfect world, we could only block the evil spammers, never block a legitimate mail, and there would be no war. If somebody chooses to install this software, their loss. Or maybe they will block more spam than legit mail, and they don't mind. I really hope we don't have to rehash this topic on a freebsd security list, because it's completely unrelated to freebsd. --pete To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message