Re: [Fwd: Re: Spamassasin over RBL, was Re: rblsmtpd -t?]
NOTE: unless you have something worthwhile and DIFFERENT to say, go away
and stop bothering me. i'm not at all interested in the brain-damaged
opinions of a moron, and this thread got very boring a long time ago.
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 05:44:39PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > > the fact is that SPEWS lists known spam sources. this is
> > > > good. i *WANT* known spam sources to be blocked. I don't want
> > > > to receive mail from known spam sources. you seem to think that
> > > > there's something wrong with this.
>
> Okay... in that case, you can block virtually ALL the large network
> providers and hosting providers like Sprint, UUnet, Level3, etc.,
> because nearly all of them have some sort of spam problem, big or
> small. I know of virtually no large provider that has not had 1 single
> complaint of spam about them.
if they are running an open relay then i will block them. if they allow
spammers to hide on their network then i will block them.
big isp's will only stop signing pink contracts if it costs them more
than they gain.
> That is real mature... "move to another country". So that is your
> solution.
>
> I think that just about sums up the logic you have about all this.
you must be an american - you can't recognise sarcasm unless it has
"...NOT!" on the end.
> > > > why the hell should an RBL care how big an ISP is? it's not
> > > > relevant - they're either part of the spam problem or they're
> > > > not. size doesn't come into it.
>
> Okay... go ahead and block Sprint, UUnet, Level3, Hotmail, YahooMail,
> and all other providers with spam complaints.
i don't have a problem with blocking servers belonging to any of the
above - if they are part of the spam problem (whether due to
incompetence or greed), they should be black-listed.
> On the other hand, Hotmail getting 100 complaints when they have...
> what... 10M email accounts (or more?), would be plain stupid.
if hotmail runs an open relay then it should be black-listed.
> It is all relative. And to say otherwise is plainly foolish.
no, it's not relative. there is an absolute, black-and-white criteria
which you are too stupid to see: if a site is part of the spam problem
then it should be black-listed. if it is not part of the problem then
it shouldn't be listed.
> > most complaints are self-evidently made by idiots. hardly anyone
> > who is capable of reading headers isn't going to waste their time
> > reporting to spamcop, they're going to maintain their own filters
> > instead....which leaves the vast majority of spamcop reporters being
> > idiots. garbage in, garbage out.
>
> I can read the headers just fine. I use Spamcop because it saves me
> time.
thank you for being an example to support my argument.
> > a bad (i.e. spamhaven) ISP should be blacklisted regardless of their
> > size. good ISPs shouldn't be blacklisted.
>
> Your definition of "good" and "bad" is so subjective it isn't worth
> commenting on.
to the contrary, your lowbrow definition is subjective - relying on
arbitrary and irrelevant criteria like ISP size.
mine is purely objective: is a site part of the spam problem or not? do
they originate or relay spam? if yes, then they are "bad" so blacklist
them. if not, then don't.
> I work with facts and figures. Spamcop does the same... if a host is
> considered to have above 2% email as spam, or something like that,
> then it will block that host. So therefore, if UUnet (good or bad)
> sends out 10M emails per day, and Spam complaints are 1000, then
> okay... but if a tiny host sends out 500K emails, and spam complaints
> are also 1K, then obviously they have a problem.
this idea is brain-damaged. all it does is allow spammers to hide in
the volume of larger ISP...they can get away with spamming (and the ISP
can get away with signing pink contracts) as long as they keep the spam
under X percent of the total volume.
that's why i don't like spamcop. they are nothing but crappy
implementations of stupid ideas.
> I've said it before, but you obviously don't get it.
i get what you said. the problem is not my comprehension, but the fact
that you are wrong.
both your example hosts above have a spam problem. both should be
fixed.
hosting or relaying for a spammer is not suddenly OK just because you
send millions of emails a day. it's wrong if you send only 1 email/day,
and it's still wrong if you send 10 billion emails/day.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: