From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Feb 5 12:31:56 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA25758 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:31:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA25728 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:31:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr05.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA00395; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:58:12 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr05.primenet.com(206.165.6.205) via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd000357; Fri Feb 5 10:58:10 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA27449; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:57:58 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199902051757.KAA27449@usr05.primenet.com> Subject: Re: ports/9864: make rblcheck use relay.orbs.org instead of To: spork@super-g.com (spork) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 17:57:50 +0000 (GMT) Cc: jack@germanium.xtalwind.net, billf@chc-chimes.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "spork" at Feb 5, 99 00:32:19 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > And as someone with an address on 99% of all spamdiscs out there, I > concur. I also receive postmaster mail here, so I get even more... Here > we see about 60% of spam coming from the dialup ports of large providers. > Sending mail to their abuse departments does nothing. If it's a smaller > provider, I generally get a nice note back stating the account was > cancelled. I am not on most of the "spamdiscs"; I'm actually one of the few people to get off of Sanford Wallace's list before he sold them out. The reason is simple: if you realy SPAM to me, you will 99.9% of the time lose your relay. What this means is that it's not cost effective to SPAM me, and, in fact, damages the value of the list you have purchased by making you less able to use it. SPAMmers understand economics, even if the people who are supposedly trying to prevent SPAM apparently do not (or their soloutions would speak to the wallet, not the non-existant morality of the sender). > 1) large providers do not even give out static addresses > 2) smaller ones (like us) have those in a seperate block from the dynamic > pools, making it easy for someone to leave the static IPs alone. There's > also some sense in doing it by name. Blocking *.da.uu.net will not hurt > static IP customers. If you have a static IP, you are most likely going > to be named something.blah.com with no special naming convention that > identifies you as a dial access user. The smaller providers that give out statics exist because they simply have not grown to the point where they have exhausted their addrress space yet. Everyone eventually does and/or chooses to voluntarily limit the maximum size of their customer base. 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