Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 03:08:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: jooji@webnology.com (Jasper O'Malley) Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/9864: make rblcheck use relay.orbs.org instead of Message-ID: <199902040308.UAA19186@usr02.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.02.9902031956240.22594-100000@mercury.webnology.com> from "Jasper O'Malley" at Feb 3, 99 08:08:08 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
] Why has everyone I've spoken with who supports the DUL been a complete ] bastard about it? "I have absolutely no sympathy for you..." and "You ] don't like it, tough." Of course, my "height of fucking stupidity" comment ] may have had something to do with that. Once you buy into the idea of proactive rather than reactive damage to the Internet's ability to transport email that ony *might* be SPAM, it's easier for you to think that honest people hurt by your proaction are being hurt for their own good. 8-|. Effectively, because SPAMmers use dialup IP address assignment, I *can't* use dialup IP address assignment, only static IP addresses on a dialup server. ] I don't have to beg for a mail relay. I run an ISP, a very spam-unfriendly ] one at that. But who are you to tell me I can't let my users run "servers" ] from dialups (although none of them do) as long as they stick to my AUP ] (posted on the web, if anyone here cares to look at it)? ] ] I have philosophical objections to the DUL, people. I question its ] usefulness/inconvenience ratio. I'm not out to help spammers, for ] Christ's sake. One big issue here is that the DUL is being maintained by the same people who provided the first half of the soloution to keeping DNS information correct in the face of dialup IP, but then failed to provide the second half -- the radiusd patches to allow the radiusd to look up the credential being authenticated and match it to a domain name that should have an MX record entered via DDNS for the duration of the session so that ETRN will work, and a host record entered via DDNS for the duration of the session so that a reverse lookup of the IP address will match the "HELO <domain>" and the "MAIL FROM:<user@domain>" <domain> part. In fact, you might go so far as to say that DUL has rendered future DDNS support for dialup dynamic IP address assignment not worth doing, since the dialup pool is going to end up in the DUL no matter what, even if DDNS. What's even more ironic is that the same company sells servers that may, at some point in the future, need to support dialup dynamic IP address assignment, as servers who are clients of the dynamic IP address assignment, so as to not artificially restrict their market (and thus income). The whole idea of a SPAM "soloution" that outlaws dialup IP address assignment, without providing a non-opt-in workaround, is rather repugnant. It also totally fails to address "portal" email, like that offered by HotMail and other companies, so all it really is is an arms race escalation, not a soloution. Bah humbug. 8-(. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?199902040308.UAA19186>