Re: [Fwd: Re: Spamassasin over RBL, was Re: rblsmtpd -t?]
> Both the connectivity and the MTA service are subject to some acceptable
> use policy. The ISP does not need the MTA as an extra gatekeeper for
> blocking spammers - he can just disconnect them, if he's good willing.
> If he isn't, the rest of the world does not need to be able to block an
> ISPs MTA to be able to pressure the ISP to disconnect spammers; they can
> just block his customer netblocks instead.
> That's a much cleaner solution than to force sites (that have a static
> IP) to use some ISPs MTA, because you don't have to decide at which size
> or connectedness you draw the line.
Well, in that case, it is becoming clear what the solution for blocking
spam, WHILE also keeping collateral damage to a minimum.
This solution is also viable for both the end-user and not hard for ISPs
to implement, so adoption could be high:
Dialups and other "dynamic IP" resources should go through the ISP's mail
server, since services like Spamcop would have to constantly block new IPs
as the spammer keeps redialing and getting new IPs.
Static IPs can send email directly, as these are usually allocated to the
spammer "permanently", and if the spammer spams from his IP, then Spamcop
can block his IP properly, and he can't just get a new one.
This works, because most "dynamic IP" services like dialups tend to have a
low connection speed, and hence, any spam that does get through before it
is blocked (or taken care of by the ISP) is minimal. Most damange, as
mentioned, would be through high speed connections, and they tend to have
static IPs (or at least mostly static IPs, even if the IP changes every
week or month).
So, that would be a solution that would make everyone happy, would it not?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com