Re: calling Philip Hands <email@example.com> [the long version]
On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 1999 at 11:25:20AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > at worst, you could say that we are indifferent to your plight. we
> > Indifference to the plight of the majority is ipso facto a conspiracy
> > to oppress.
> absolute garbage.
> (a) we are not talking about the majority here. we are talking about
> a tiny minority of people who have the knowledge, the skills, and the
> technology to run their own mail servers. the vast majority of internet
> users are barely capable of even following the usage instructions given
> them by their ISPs.
No, this is what YOU are talking about. I'm talking about a system which
rejects a whole population of addresses based upon one "suspicious"
address in the subnet. We are talking about a system that, based upon a
non-reliable test, choose to reject mail from valid internet mail servers,
defeating the service that those providers are contracted to provide. From
my ISPs point of view this is an "obstruction of service" problem that
they can see no way to resolve (thanks to netgod for a possible solution).
These guys are not "clueless users", they are trying to run a business
that provides service to their customers, and object to spammers at least
as much as you do.
Craig, you have been promoting so much FUD here that there is no time to
rebut it all. This particular instance of the problem was caused by a bug
in sendmail. Are you suggesting that ISPs that use sendmail are
> (b) joseph and other technically competent people have numerous ways to
> route around any inconvenience, all it takes is a bit of planning and a
> bit of work. if that is too much effort, i can see no reason to feel any
> sympathy at all for people too lazy to look out for their own interests.
Also orthogonal to the current situation.
> > Forcing the majority to conform to onerous conditions where some mail
> > servers are good and others are evil, just doesn't improve the overal
> > functionality of the communication.
> (c) these are not onerous conditions.
Requiring that I monitor the state of my ISP's system to verify that the
server I have been provided is satisfactory to all of the paranoid
pinheads in the rest of the net community, being ready to quickly switch
to an alternate form of mail service whenever things get "dicey", is just
rediculous for someone who is a customer, trying to buy a service. And if
you try to tell me that I must find a more clued ISP...just don't do that.
> (d) some ISPs have enough of a clue to configure their mail servers to
> deny 3rd party relaying. these are good ISPs. reward them with your
I have a "good IPS". Both him and I are being rewarded by being ignored.
> (e) some ISPs do not have enough of a clue to do this, or they do not
> care unless it affects their bottom line. boycott them - they contribute
> directly to the spam problem through their incompetence or their greed.
There are many other reasons for the current state of affairs that have
nothing to do with either incometence or greed. Why is it with you, that
those are the only two "reasonable" motivations in situations like this?
> > > if you really want to send mail to a system protected by a DUL, then
> > > nobody is stopping you. all you have to do is use your ISP's mail
> > > relay or make some other arrangements.
> > I DO USE MY ISP'S MAIL SERVER/RELAY! It is that very reason that my
> > mail was bounced. mail.polaris.net,
> ORBS is not a Dialup IP List (DUL). ORBS is a list of open relays.
And it mistakenly thinks that mail.polaris.net is an open relay!!!!!
> your problem with mail.polaris.net has nothing at all to do with the DUL
> RBL we have been discussing.
No it has to do with an ORBS rejection. You are again off talking about
something else again.
> > a long time mail server, is on the list, not because it is an "open
> > relay", but because a bug in sendmail causes it to fail the test used
> > by ORBS. My ISP has apparently tried to deal with the problem, with no
> > success. Anyone who wants to supply some help to them will be a real
> > hero. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
> i suppose it's possible that such a bug exists, although i haven't heard of
> it before. if it does exist then they should talk to ORBS and explain the
> situation - if they can prove that they are not open to 3rd party relay then
> they should be taken off the ORBS RBL.
The criterion are simple and unchangable. The server must pass the test
suite. This totalitarian attitude is the most objectionable part of this,
as it "feels" just like the spammers indifference, and is just as
difficult to resolve, mainly because of the mind-set of the anti-spammers.
> if it is not a bug, just incompetence on their part, then they should
> start acquiring some clues.
Netgod identified a possible problem with sendmail 8.8.8 which would cause
a non-open relay to appear open. I have not heard back from tech-support
yet to know whether that will fix the problem or not. Time will tell.
You would be a lot more helpful if you came to these discussions with an
attempt to fix the problem like netgod, rather than insisting that the
whole problem is caused by other people's stupidity, incompetance, or
greed. When you get in these "moods" you make the rest of us just wish you
would go away and sulk somewhere else.
I often enjoy your comments specifically because your POV is so different,
and often gain some insight into a problem that I would not otherwise have
seen. This discussion bears no resemblance to any of those.
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: email@example.com Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-