Re: Every spam is sacred
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:46:48AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> How about, "because we have been unfairly listed as being spammers and
> had our mail blocked, even though we were innocent, we refuse to
> participate and endorse a system which in the past as been used to
> unfairly block innocents, including who were unfortunate enough to
> share netblocks with those whose political views were at odds from
> those who had run DNSBL's?"
It's deeply different... IIRC a single IP was listed in an absurd and
unuseful RBL, because people reported us as spammers. Mechanisms and
rules for the suggested RBLs are another thing.
Should we blame every antispam project only because stupid people
reported us to a crappy system used only by masochist mail server
admins?
> Contenting filtering, I think is great. Delegating to someone else
> the power to say whether or not a very large number of people will see
> mail from a particular host or network, is more power than I at least
> personally am willing to delegate to someone else.
The suggestion was for "warning", not "reject"... you can choose if you
want to read that mail, simply parsing that header.
> This is a philosophical issue, and I understand there are those who
> think that DNS blocking lists are wonderful. But I at least am glad
> that the Debian admins have chose to use an approach such as
> spamassassin, rather than DNS blacklists.
We have a nice and polite mechanism to try immediately without pains...
And several months passed... bah... :|
--
Christian Surchi, csurchi@debian.org, christian@firenze.linux.it | ICQ
www.debian.org - www.softwarelibero.it - www.firenze.linux.it | 38374818
They took some of the Van Goghs, most of the jewels, and all of the Chivas!
Reply to: