Re: [Fwd: Re: Spamassasin over RBL, was Re: rblsmtpd -t?]
Hi,
On Wed, 8 May 2002, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 11:11:31AM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > > making ISPs responsible for the mail sent by their customers is the
> > > ONLY thing that actually works.
> >
> > I don't get this. In the other thread you advocate that site size
> > shouldn't matter, and I agree to that when it comes to this thing.
>
> what has size got to do with it?
Because the distinction between a customer and an ISP is not clear.
Joe's Pop & Mom's ISP is an ISP, but at the same time a customer of eg.
Qwest or Level 3, or even something smaller. I wondered whether you
wanted to use site size to make the difference between a supplier and a
customer, because I think that's not useful.
> ISPs are responsible for spam sent by their customers, regardless of the
> size of the ISP (or the size of the customer for that matter).
Qwest is an ISP. Is it responsible for mail sent from their ISP
customers?
Perhaps they should be. Then, would you say, if a large percentage of
their customer ISPs are spamhaüser (plural for spamhaus), should we
start blocking all mail from Qwest?
At which percentage? How can we measure that? Using spam messages vs.
total output perhaps? That sounds remarkably like what Spamcop's doing.
So which criteria would *you* choose? You seem avoiding that question.
> > Following this reasoning, would you want to force an ISP that only has
> > a single connection also to deliver all their mail through that
> > upstream ISP's MTAs, purely for accountability purposes?
>
> what the hell are you talking about?
See above. The question is: do you advocate to enforce the
responsibility for the larger ISPs over the smaller ones and their
(respective) customers by forcing mail though upstream MTAs, which can
be blocked in one fell swoop in order to teach them responsibility?
Because that's the idea I got from you encouraging ISPs to use RBLs
and/or blocking outgoing SMTP, to force their customers to use their
ISPs MTAs.
Hence my question. Apparently you see a big and fundamental difference
between an ISP, who would be allowed to do direct to MX SMTP, and a
customer, who would not be allowed to do direct to MX SMTP. If it's not
size that makes the difference between an ISP and a customer, is it
whether you're connected to one or more upstream ISPs? Is it whether you
resell any access? What?
> are you being genuinely stupid or is this a deliberate attempt to put
> straw-man words in my mouth?
Just continue assuming I'm stupid. That's fine with me, if that helps.
> most ISPs don't run on dynamic IP addresses. while there are some very
> ignorant ISPs around, very few are stupid enough to even think of
> running a mail server ona dynamic IP address.
>
> i don't see any need to make special exemptions for ISPs who are stupid
> enough to run on dynamic IPs.
Of course not. But now I understand. You were basically assuming that
everyone agrees that
1. ISP is equivalent to static IPs, and
2. Customer is equivalent to dynamic IP.
In that case, I can only say: wake up. There's more to the internet than
small ISPs and their dialup customers. Or, please define what you mean a
bit better. I agree that dynamic IPs is an excellent criteria. But
don't go around saying that all customers should use their ISPs MTAs.
And my general point for you regarding this thread: you've *got* to
define your criteria for fighting spam sources better than you do if you
want to criticise the concepts used by eg. Spamcop that harshly (which
is what this thread was all about).
Oh, and please try a little politeness. It makes you feel better, trust
me.
Cheers,
Emile.
--
E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | e-advies@evbergen.xs4all.nl
tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 | http://www.e-advies.info
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: