Re: [Fwd: Re: Spamassasin over RBL, was Re: rblsmtpd -t?]
> Of course. As said, if the list causes only people with *dynamic* IPs to
> be forced to use their ISP's MTA, I'd agree that it's a very good idea.
Very good idea... but how is the RBL going to stay so up-to-date with what
is static, what is dynamic, etc.? It sounds good, but would be a logistic
and administrative nightmare to keep it all current. Or has this been
automated (or some other way)?
>
> But if we start using a policy that declares all endpoint-to-endpoint
> mail illegal, allowing the direct to MX SMTP privilege only to large(r)
> sites, then we'll set ourselves back to some form of uucp, and
> practically start to advocate a single policing global mail hub that's
> in the end responsible for everyone's mail. I'm sure it would require a
> MS Passport account ;-)
Good grief... don't give Micro$oft any MORE ideas ;-)
>
> But where do you stop the accountibility chain? At which point (size!)
> do sites become responsible for their own actions?
>
> Indeed, the only sensible answer seems to be "if it has a fixed IP
> address". Not whether they are intermittently connected, whether they
> use PPP, or what their bandwith is. That has nothing to do with it.
>
> In short, "dialup" is the wrong name. It should be "dynamic IP".
This sounds good to me.
If it is a dynamic IP, then they can keep redialing (if dialup) and hence
get around Spamcop's blocks. SO, block the dynamic IPs, then use Spamcop
to handle the static IPs.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: