[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: calling Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> [the long version]

On Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 08:52:55PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 1999 at 09:27:15AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > using DUL has nothing to do with "ghettos" - it is entirely to do
> > with the undisputable fact that almost all spam comes directly from
> > dialup IP addresses, sent from throw-away dialup accounts.
> Well, I send stuff that isn't spam from a dialup IP.
> Do you assert that I am a spammer?  Yes or no?  Answer the question.

No.  to my knowledge you are not a spammer.

> It is not beside the point in any way, shape or form.  If anti-spam
> tools affect non-spammers, then they are by definition insufficient
> specific in their application.

yes.  shit happens.  nothing is perfect.  that's life, deal with it.

blocking almost all spam for the minor price of requiring end-users to
use the smtp relay services provided by their ISP is a big win.

> > you miss the point entirely.  here it is:
> Like Paul Vixie and all the other people who would blow up a 1000-room
> hotel because the residents of a few rooms are not worthy to live, you
> keep *AVOIDING* the issue of innocent bystanders.

"innocent bystanders" (to use your zero-content emotionally manipulative
label) are not prevented from sending mail by the DUL RBL.  they can get
their message through by using the smtp relay provided by their ISP.  if
they choose not to use it, then that's their problem.

> That's perfectly true.  Unfortunately, with tools like the DUL, you
> are effectively asserting something else:

you are entitled to hold whatever absurd opinions you like, even if they
have no relationship to reality.

> I didn't sign up to have my non-spam mail thrown away because it might
> have been spam.

tough. other people choose not to receive mail from dialup IPs because
of the likelihood that it might be spam. if you want to communicate with
these people, then you know what you have to do.

> Was my message spam or not?  Are all SMTP connections originating from
> dynamically allocated IP's a priori spam?

mail from dialup IPs is *probably* spam. the amount of non-spam mail
coming direct from dialup IPs is statistically insignificant.

any end-user adversely affected by this can trivially avoid any problems
- all they have to do is use their ISP's mail relay.

> Hell, is that even true a posteriori?  Some Venn diagrams and set
> theory may be helpful to illustrate the point.

i see your point. it's irrelevant. it also makes it patently obvious
that you have never had to administer a mail server for thousands of
users which was under constant bombardment by spamming vermin.

Using a DUL does not censor you, it does not prevent you from
communicating with anyone. the only thing it does is require you to use
your ISP's mail server (or some other legitimate mail relay host) if you
want to communicate with people who use a DUL.

> > their ISP's mail relay. blocking direct mail from dialup IP addresses
> > is a GOOD THING, with insignificant side-effects. it blocks spam very
> Insignificant to you.  Not insignificant to Dale Scheetz or me.  Dale may
> choose to work around the problem, and not feel slighted by overbroad rules
> that trash legitimate mail.  I do, and justifiably.  I've sent mail that
> was thrown away for being spam...when it wasn't.

dale can obviously learn from experience.

> > effectively (DUL is way more effective than other RBLs), and it also
> > serves to put responsibility for spammers back onto the ISPs who
> > sell them accounts.
> DUL has also proven itself effective at throwing away non-spam mails.
> Well, damnit, that would be a problem if all the non-spammers would
> just move out the ghetto, wouldn't it?

as i said, it has nothing to do with "ghettos". if you want to send
email to people using a DUL RBL then send it through your ISP's mail
server. there is no ghetto discrimination involved here.

> Use of a mail relay should be an OPTION, not a necessity.

it *is* optional.

it is also optional for a mail server to accept mail from dialup IP

sometimes these two options may conflict: shit happens, deal with it.

> > in summary: if you don't like it, then tough luck - no one is under any
> > obligation to receive your mail. if you want to communicate with people,
> > it's up to you to do so in an acceptable manner.
> Acceptable?  What is unacceptable about the way I communicate now?  

your mail is unacceptable to some sites because you choose to deliver
it directly from a dialup IP address, rather than via your ISP's mail

if you want to send mail to those who have made this choice then you
know what to do. either do it or not, but quit whining - you have no
right to tell anyone else that they must accept mail from you or from
anyone else.

in other words, accept the consequences of your own action or inaction.


craig sanders

Reply to: