Re: Branden's mail policies
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 11:44:00PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday June 21 2005 9:12 pm, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 05:04:32AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > Why pay someone else to do what I can do myself for free?
> > because you can't do it yourself for free - at least not on a
> > dialup/dynamic IP address.
> Sure you can. Commercial connection, dynamic IP. You might not have
> a choice on a budget.
no, you can't. many servers will reject any mail from you simply because
you have a dynamic IP. i.e. you can NOT provide the same service yourself
on a dynamic IP.
if you have a static IP, then sure...go for it. it's easy to provide a
mail service as good as or better than any ISP or email service. just
make sure your mail server is correctly configured (e.g. not an open
relay, no open FormMail type CGI scripts, correct MX records, etc etc
> > why can't you do it yourself? because lots of mail servers block
> > all mail from dynamic IP addresses.
> Which is stupid and generates false positives.
you miss the point.
it doesn't matter whether it is stupid or wrong or that it generates
alleged "false positives". those issues are completely irrelevant.
what matters is that blocking mail from dynamic IP addresses is a common
practice, and that there is NOTHING you can do about it. you have no
control over other people's servers (nor should you).
if they choose to block mail from dynamic IPs, that is their right. end
if you want to send mail to those servers, it is you that will have
to change the way you send or route your outbound mail, because they
are not going to change for you. they simply don't care about the
much-less-than-one-in-a-million emails from dynamic IPs that happens to
be legit rather than yet another spam or virus.
> > regardless of the rights and/or wrongs of this, it is THEIR server,
> > so it runs by THEIR rules. you have no say in it. get used to that
> > fact.
> If they don't want my mail, fine, but they don't get to bitch and tell
> me I'm wrong because they don't know how to effectively filter what
> they're trying to block while minimizing false positives.
yawn. come back when you've had some experience running a real mail
server with a real load rather than a tiny home mail server handling
mail for a few tiny domains. then, maybe, you might just have something
to say on the topic that is worth listening to.
until then, your opinion is worth about as much as that of any other
wannbe amateur who thinks that their half-arsed home solution that works
for a few hundred or a few thousands emails/day is good enough to scale
up to hundreds of thousands or millions of emails/day.
> Any scheme that generates false positives needs to be reworked until
> it works right.
most people who use dynamic IP blacklists don't consider it to be a
false positive when mail from a dynamic IP is blocked, regardless of
they see it as their mail system working as designed.
if anything, they'll see it as a *false negative* when mail from a
dynamic IP gets through because it isn't listed in a DUL yet...and
they'll probably report the IP to various DULs if/when they see it
you may have a different opinion, but it's not your mail server so your
opinion doesn't count. at all.
> > 1. get a static IP address. this may cost more than a dynamic IP.
> And the arrogant attitude that only those with shitloads of cash to
> burn are allowed to handle their own services, never mind that one's
> economic standing has nothing to do with whether or not they're a
> spammer. I may be on a DHCP block, but that doesn't mean that my IP
> has changed for any reason in the last six months save for the one
> time I swapped network cards out.
no, but if it's a dynamic IP (as most DHCP assigned addresses are), then
it means that lots of mail servers will reject mail direct from you.
whether you like it or not, that is what they will do. deal with it.
as mentioned before, your choices are: 1. get a static IP; 2. route your
mail via a static IP.
> > 2. route your mail via another mail server with a static IP. there
> > are dozens of secure ways of achieving this. there may be extra
> > costs.
> Ironically, it's often these large smarthosts actually relaying spews
> from poorly enforced antispam policies in the TOS.
any that don't adequately block spam will find themselves on an
anti-spam RBL. use another.
> > note that there is no third option of whinging about how your
> > [...]
> You don't have the right to talk down to people for their inability
> to obtain the unobtainable.
i have the right to talk down to idiots whenever i like. especially if
they're whinging in my presence.
> You wrongly assume it isn't a valid option when for many people it's
> the only option. Deal.
how is whinging a valid option? it won't even achieve anything (aside
from making you look like a whinging loser)
craig sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org> (part time cyborg)