on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:37:09PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for your useful mail. This thread started to fill my killfile... > :-) > > Am Mi, den 17.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 01:21: > > - There are highly specific filters and methods which can effectively > > discriminate between spam and non-spam content. Activity-based > > lists, Bayesian and content-based filters, reputation systems, > > teergrubbing, rate-limiting, and the like. > > Yes, but. > > Why should /I/ install lots of software to enable others to have a > mailserver on their DynIP?
If you plan on being able to receive legitimate mail from legitimate users, you'll have an interest. My point is that you don't have to take any extraordinary measures. Blocking mail, whether by RBL or . > But, at that point, I see the discussion drifting away, since my > expression was not against having "a mail server" (BTW: What is a > mailserver? POP3? SMTP? RTFRFC. If you don't know the answer to _this_ question, you've got no basis for participating intelligently in this conversation. And the answer is trivial enough to research. > it's just the "direct" mail communication between DynIP and recipient > I'm against. There should be a smarthost that's always "on air", > always accepts answers, is still there in 10 minutes and has a backup > mx in a different network. This has been discussed at length previously on this list and elsewhere, including in the links previously posted. Simply: ISP smarthosts are not universally appropriate, acceptable, or reliable. > > > > This is *not* censorship, by the way. > > > > No. It's arbitrary discrimination. > > You are not discriminated - just use a smarthost You are not descriminated against. Just buy a house in a different neighborhood. Khendon's law invoked. > > > > Oh yes, and blacks to the back of the bus, please; just be happy we > > > > let you on at all. > > > > > > It's a weak argument that requires a comparison to racism to be heard, > > > not to mention that it demeans the plight of those affected by racism. > > > > The similarity is this: a secondary indicator is being used to > > establish an absolute preference for or against a specific activity. > > Despite the known invalidity of this indicator in a large number of > > cases. And the existence of more specific, accurate discriminators. > A DynIP-mailserver /does/ indeed often(!) behaves more badly than a > "normal" one. For example, mail to it must often stay on my server > since the DynIP-Server just isn't online, has no backup-mx and it's > more often source of spam. Again: the US originates 60%+ of all spam. Should the US be blacklisted by all other countries? What's your acceptable false-positive cutoff? Again: there are accurate, effective, specific filtering tools and combat techniques available which _both_ protect your Inbox _and_ allow for legitimate DynIP mailservers. Again: both these points have been made previously. Khendon's law invoked. > BTW: The discussion misses another important point: More and more > providers block ports below 1024. Then you change to another provider? > OK - but then choose one with a reliable smarthost. One never knows... > :-) I don't particularly object to server / non-server ISP contracts, *if* they're clearly specified. My own ISP blocks outbound :25 for dailup. On another ISP, broadband :25 was open, but DynIP blocks limited usefulness. This is a frustration for many, including technical hobbiests, professionals, and small businesses effectively running on residential broadband service. Heck, I know many professionals with AOL addresses (though admittedly few run Debian). Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Geek for hire: http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
