Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:45:29 -0600 (CST) From: "Jasper O'Malley" <jooji@webnology.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com>, Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG, onemo@jps.net Subject: Re: ports/9864: make rblcheck use relay.orbs.org instead of dorkslayers.com Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.02.9902031913001.22594-100000@mercury.webnology.com> In-Reply-To: <199902032358.QAA10889@usr08.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Not at all. ISP's that provide dynamic IP instead of static IP
> just have to provide a relay server with a static IP for their
> customers.
What prevents someone from spamming through the relay then? What does the
DUL provide, then, that the RBL cannot?
> The only "prejudice" here is against non-accountable IP addresses.
They're non-accountable whether or not the DUL exists. Whether or not you
spam directly from a dialup or through a relay, it's equally easy (or
difficult) to catch you.
> Really, Paul needs to not be running RBL, per se, but instead signing
> weekly certificates for mail servers that aren't in the database. If
> someone SPAMs, then they don't get their certificate signed.
An opt-in for every mail server on the Internet?
Cheers,
Mick
The Reverend Jasper P. O'Malley dotdot:jooji@webnology.com
Systems Administrator ringring:asktheadmiral
Webnology, LLC woowoo:http://www.webnology.com/~jooji
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.02.9902031913001.22594-100000>