Re: More sorbs blacklisting
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 05:45:14PM +0200, Anders Breindahl wrote:
> 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).
we're not talking about forward and reverse DNS, you moron. we're
talking about an RBL, specifically a dialup/dynamic/dhcp (DUL) list.
if you're going to intrude into a conversation, you should first make
sure that you a) know what is being discussed, and b) you know what you
are talking about. you fail on both counts.
> 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.
and water is wet. where's the relevance?
> 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.
bullshit. you still don't get that the right to free speech does not
include the right to force anyone else to listen.
you are certainly entitled to set up a mail server on a dynamic IP
address. just as anyone is entitled to configure their own mail server
to reject all mail from dynamic IP addresses.
only spammers and morons claim that spam and anti-spam methods are free
speech issues.
> The Internet has always been somewhat utopian in this respect, and I'm
> saying: Let's keep it that way.
you do what you want on your server(s), i'll do what i want on mine.
and one of the things i want is to reject all mail from dynamic IP addresses.
> > 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).
so? i'm *required* to accept mail from viruses and scumbag spammers on
dynamic IP addresses just because some ignoramus wants to learn how to
run a mail server? no way. they should learn how to run a mail server
BEFORE putting one live on the internet.
the net has changed a lot in the last 15 or 20 years. back then, spam
wasn't much of a problem - even to the point where open relaying was
considered polite and friendly. spammers abused that, which forced
everyone who didn't want to receive the flood of garbage to block mail
from open relays. same with mail from dynamic addresses - and, while it
may suck that this imposes some (easily avoidable) restrictions on the
(very rare) people who can competently run a home mail server, blocking
mail from dynamic addresses is necessary.
> > 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?
no.
> 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).
do what you like on your server(s). i'll do what i like on mine, and
that includes blocking mail from dynamic addresses. in my experience, it
is an extremely effective way of blocking spam with little (effectively
none) collateral damage.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: