Re: Every spam is sacred
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> said:
>
> > In this case you should point your MUA to mail.upv.es.
>
> > If they leave mail.upv.es as an open relay and you get blocked
> > because of this, you should complain to postmaster at upv.es, not to
> > whoever blocked you.
>
> In the meanwhile, you, an innocent, would have become
> collateral damage, and your non-spam mail would still be rejected by
> those who blindly trudst thr RBL. And it is very likely they do not
> care.
>
> I find that unacceptable, myself.
In the meanwhile, spammers might abuse such mail server and send more
spam in one hour than legitimate messages were sent from the same
server in one month.
Yes, collateral damage is evil, but spam is evil too. You should not
be surprised that many people choose what they think is the least of
two evils.
For every potential false positive that you might miss because of
Debian eventually using the DSBL, I have to receive, download and
handle 1999 spam messages, which means 10Mb of spam (the average
spam message is a little more than 5K).
To me, *that* is unacceptable, but fortunately there is a
recipients_reject_except variable in exim. Assuming you will not ask
to be taken out of this variable, do you have anything against me not
being in it? Or are you so anti-DSBL that you believe I should be
*forced* to receive and handle so much crap?
Reply to: