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 firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com