Re: More sorbs blacklisting
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 12:44:37AM +0100, Pigeon wrote:
> I play by the rules of SMTP. There are no "rules" that dictate how my
> SMTP connection should be routed. SORBS is trying to unilaterally
> rewrite the rules that everyone plays by.
here it is in simple terms that even you might understand if you can
switch off your holier-than-thou anger and whiny sense of entitlement
for a few seconds:
SORBS is not trying to rewrite the rules.
Many mail server operators have decided that they do not want to receive
mail from dynamic/dialup/adsl IP addresses. to facilitate that decision,
they have hunted for, found, and decided to use various DUL listings,
including the SORBS DUL.
BTW, your SORBS page is moronic and full of numerous factual errors.
For example, contrary to your whiny complaint, SORBS do not sell their
listings to ISPs (or to anyone else). they make them freely available to
anyone who wants to use them.
as for your whinge about the SORBS listing being inaccurate - who
are they to believe? you? or your ISP? your ISP clearly, by your own
admission, regards your IP address as dynamic.
if they are to believe you, how are they to distinguish you from any
of the millions of "legitimate businessmen" who want to do some "email
marketing"? there is a good reason why they only accept DUL de-listing
requests from those who actually own the IP address space in question,
and not from end-users.
here's a free clue: quit whining and get a life. nobody's going to
fuck up their mail systems and accept millions of spams from scumbags
all over the world just because you might one day want to send them an
email. the pro vs con analysis is not even remotely in your favour. that
might suck from your POV, but that's the way it is. deal with it.
> Why should you object to receiving mail on the grounds of its routing?
it's not about the routing, it's about the source. like it or not, the
vast majority of spam and viruses come direct from dialup/dynamic/adsl
addresses.
in short: if you want to wallow in the sewer, don't be surprised if
others want to avoid the stench.
> That makes no sense. Object based on *content*, that's fine. Block based
it only makes no sense for those who are throwing a self-righteous
tantrum because they expect everyone else to treat their mail as being
more important than they themselves are willing to treat it.
if your mail is so important to you, use a real mail server (i.e. one
with a static IP address) - your ISP's, or your own virtual or co-lo
server, or one belonging to one of the many mail service providers on
the net.
> on routing, fair enough since you're a private individual rather than
> an ISP handling other people's mails, though it is a somewhat
> dysfunctional method. But object based on routing? You mean that if,
> say, your business had been trying to obtain a contract with some
> other business and the other business sent you an email saying that
> you had been awarded the contract, but didn't route it through their
> ISP's smarthost, you would *object* ? That's just weird.
i would consider it a worthwhile price to pay to avoid getting millions
of spams from dynamic addresses. email would be unusable if i had to
accept all that garbage - i wouldnt be able to find the legit mail
hidden amongst all the crap.
> > Since this is debian-isp, I would like to know if someone has any
> > actual reasons why smarthosting should be considered a bad idea?
>
> Reliability, for a start - since UK Online has been mentioned, I might
> as well point out that their mailserver is somewhat unreliable and my
if you pay for crap service, you get crap service. if mail is important to
you, then pay for better mail service.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: