Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 04:57:40 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: jack@germanium.xtalwind.net (jack) Cc: billf@chc-chimes.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/9864: make rblcheck use relay.orbs.org instead of Message-ID: <199902050457.VAA18801@usr07.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902041536160.13910-100000@germanium.xtalwind.net> from "jack" at Feb 4, 99 03:45:43 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > (If I were running it) I'd blacklist them because they were running
> > relays, not because they are dialup users. Assuming all dialup users are
> > evil and irresponsible is a bad idea.
> >
> > Everyone seems to be missing a large point here. Spammers should be
> > punished because they spam. People who have never spammed should not be
> > punished because of some elitist quest to squash those who do not have
> > more bandwidth then a POTS/ISDN line.
>
> You're absolutely right. However, complaints to uu.net, psi.net,
> netcom.{com,net,ca}, att, mci, etc. have not reduced the amount
> of spam I received from those sources in the least. Blocking
> their dialup ports has reduced it by much more than 50%.
>
> It's not a matter of passing judgment on the type of connection
> someone has, it's a matter of what keeps that crap out of my
> mailbox.
Just to chime in here...
Although it is not obvious from the DUL web pages at this time,
not all dialup IP's are tarred with this brush.
Specifically, I have been led to believe that the people there
are aware of the lack of difference between an HTML tunnel to
an SMTP server accessed via a dialup IP, and an SMTP server
that is directly accessed by a dialup IP.
This means that if you have an anti-SPAM AUP, and you enforce it,
your dialups will not necessarily remain listed in the DUL.
This actually drastically reduces the DUL damage to effectively
the damage caused by the RBL itself -- in other words, it is an
opt-in for people with AUP's to allow their dialups to relay.
My original understanding was that all dialups were going to be
screwed to using an ISP mail server to relay mail, in the face
of ISP objections to relaying, ISP ignorance of the fact that
it would release their modems for other customers more quickly
for them to relay, and the inability of ISP's in Japan to relay
due to being charged per packet sent.
That dialups can be secured from DUL listing is welcome news,
and, on the whole, seems to me to be no worse than enforcing
RFC conformance for DNS server contents (e.g., a policy that
you can opt into enforcement, and the people attempting to
contact you in violation of that policy will fail in the
attempt).
The documentation on the WWW site needs to be cleared up in this
regard; my understanding was obtained through several email
"converations".
On the plus side, this saves me from writing an SMTP to HTML
tunnel for HotMail this weekend (using my Visual InterDev and
Visual C++ tools) so as to dump them in the same boat as dialup
IP and drag MicroSoft into the fray:
dialup IP -> HotMail -> SMTP
is topologically equivalent to:
dialup IP -> SMTP
...luckily, this was already obvious to the parties involved.
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?199902050457.VAA18801>