Re: [MAPS #33478] Re: Whats goin on?
On 3 Apr 2001, Roberto Diaz wrote:
> I am sending this here because according to mail-abuse.org I and the whole
> dynamic dns users are spammers just because we are using dynamic ip's.
> I want all the debian mail relay's administrators be very aware about
> this.
It isn't what the Deb User list is normally about, but since it
could/does affect many Debian users I'm prepared to let it pass
(yeah, gracious ain't I ;-) I don't know whether the rest of the Deb
User list feels the same way, but I'm sure they'll let us know if it
isn't welcome :o)
Note that AFAIK the Deb User list does not allow non-members to post.
Is there an alternative public forum where this could take place
(news.admin.net-abuse.mail, maybe)?
> They want to block the whole IP's which are dynamic so they can not send
> mail anymore so every guy in the internet will have to depend upon
> a third-party mail relay to send mail.. whats the next?
Well, AIUI, specifically they want people with Dynamic IPs not to
send mail direct but instead, as you say, to use some 3rd party relay
(normally their ISP's I would imagine). [By way of background for
those who don't know what this is about.]
> mail-abuse.org is doing something like "lets put into jail every people who
> are living in a city where a crime has been commited"... this reminds me those
> times in France when nazis killed 100 inocent persons for each nazi killed.
Actually, for all I agree with your sentiments (I am a *cough*
responsible Dial Up user, why should I suffer just because someone
else spams?), all MAPS are doing is publishing a list - "Here are the
addresses of 100 random people". That people choose to use that list
to block email from those IP blocks is the problem.
> > It can be argued
> > whether blocking mail coming from dynamic IPs is worthy. Some people claim most
> > spammers use dynamic IPs, therefore mail from dynamic IPs should be blocked. Others
> > claim we shouldnt block 'good' mail based on the assumption that it may be spam.
I would tend to agree with the last sentence. Saying that the
majority of spammers use DUs is not the same as saying that the
majority of DU users are spammers. The words "baby" and "bathwater"
spring to mind.
Hmm. Can <insert choice of MTA here> be configured to fallback to
deliver via smarthost in such situations? I don't know what the
returned smtp status code is or exactly how MTAs respond. Having the
source, of course, means that such a workaround could be coded
(assuming the mission is to make things work and not to make things
work as Roberto and I believe they should). Actually if one were
interested in spreading the workd the patch could also add headers
or an extra sig telling the recipient that they would have got their
mail earlier if it had not been for the way that their incoming mail
is dealt with.
--
Gary
Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes
not on the equal freedom of others. HERBERT SPENCER, 1851
(Bizarre! This, believe it or not, was selected by my random sig gen!)
Reply to: