Re: More sorbs blacklisting
On 2006-07-10 1220, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 03:09:30AM +0200, Anders Breindahl wrote:
> > It's a dilemma. In the one hand we have freedom of expression, in
> > the other the demands of customers. That is, sacrificing every-Joe's
> > ability to set up a mail server on his own domain on his high-end DSL
> > line will drastically bring down the amount of illegitimate mail in
> > later (and more resource-demanding) filtering and thereby the amount
> > of false-negatives in costumers' mailboxes.
>
> it's got nothing at all to do with free speech of "freedom of
> expression".
>
> the OP is 100% entitled to say whatever he wants to say.
Free expression is hindered if only elitists have the power to spread
their word. (Elitists in this case being those who can accomplish valid
reverse and forward DNS for their mail servers).
It's similar to what Gutenberg taught, when the first-ever mass produced
book was a non-Latin bible (IIRC), that could be understood by the lay
man. Before the printing press, books were only for those who could
afford having a monk hand-copying them. The printing press made wide
publication possible and reasonably cheap, and thereby was a leap
forward for freedom of speech.
In the same way, the ability to set up a mail server on a home DSL
connection is guaranteeing that we all have a way of expressing
ourselves. That's the connection to freedom of speech.
The Internet has always been somewhat utopian in this respect, and I'm
saying: Let's keep it that way.
> if people want to set up mail servers for fun and learning, they can do
> it on their own private network and not subject the net to yet another
> half-arsed incompetent who doesn't yet know what they're doing (if they
> ever will).
The fun thing about setting up a mail server is amongst others, to see
it interact with the world. Locking it up in a pentest-environment isn't
going to provide that real-world-experience that debian-isp-guys have
(and -- I guess -- in some cases, got them their jobs).
> huh? we're talking about SORBS DUL, not about whether the reverse DNS
> is valid or whether it matches the forward DNS.
Didn't quite catch that. However, those are two analogous ways of
determining whether an initiating host is a home DSL user with a high
probability of being an infected Windows machine, right?
And by the way; that's the exact description of the possibility of
spamming: Highly probable, when off a dynamically assigned IP. It's
still not exact, and should therefore not be treated as a binary
criterion. (Think 3+ points in spamassassin).
Regards, skrewz.
Reply to: