On Sunday June 19 2005 6:22 am, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca> [2005.06.19.1404 +0200]: > > Why pay someone else to do what I can do myself for free? > > The problem is not you, the problem are the other morons who think > like you *and* can't operate mail servers. So punish them specifically. There are blackholes that do that. bl.spamcop.net, sbl.spamhaus.org, xbl.spamhaus.org and bl.ursine.ca all do that. > With that I mean: I have > no reason to believe that you cannot operate a mail server, so > don't read this as an attack at all. But for everyone who can > operate a mail server, 1000 others run one and have no clue. Thus, > it's a good idea to restrict the set of IPs that are to act as > legitimate mail servers, and DUL is one way to do so effectively. You need to take into account false positives as well when you're thinking about effectiveness. If false positives are greater than zero, effectiveness is near-zero. > For what it's worth: how do you know they don't intercept the mail > that your mail spool then sends out? Eventually you get a bounce with the routing headers and you see a mystery hop through your ISP. > Point being: if you don't trust your ISP, switch! If you cannot, > learn to deal, get politically active and work on antitrust, or > move. Working on the move part, but Canada won't let me and there's no place worth moving to in my current country with alternatives. > I have no further intention to argue my position here for I am > perfectly aware that people disagree. I maintain that I think DUL > are a good thing and I will continue using them. Your loss. -- Paul Johnson Email and Instant Messenger (Jabber): baloo@ursine.ca http://ursine.ca/~baloo/
Attachment:
pgpp0uO1XrYal.pgp
Description: PGP signature