Re: My email is rejected by some sites
wow ... so, if you don't have exposure to the joys and sorrows of
running your own server on the net, how can you really learn?
then, the net and everyone who uses it should be licensed like ham
radio operators? afterall, the net is just a transmission medium
like rf is a transmission medium.
At Tuesday, 16 December 2003, Joerg Rossdeutscher <ratti@gesindel.
de> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Am Di, den 16.12.2003 schrieb ScruLoose um 21:36:
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:08:12PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
>> > Am Mo, den 15.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 02:55:
>
>> > A mailserver can harm _others_.
>> >
>> > I said that yesterday, and today I find this mailinglist full of
>> > nonsense since one guy is not able to configure his procmail.
Now got
>> > what I mean?
>>
>> But his procmail rule would do exactly the same damage whether
his mail
>> is routed through a smarthost or sent direct from a local mailserver,
so
>> I don't really see how this provides any support for your position.
>
>Yes - but it shows a normal user should use as less "harmful" technology
>as possible.
>I wouldn't say a mailserver at home is useless at all, but if someone
>tries to setup a mailserver and doesn't even know that a lot providers
>reject dynIPs, I'd say: This person is the wrong one to connect a
>mailserver to the net.
>
>> Your argument is based on the assumption that an ISP can always be
>> trusted to set up a mailserver right, and the home user (sysadmin
of a
>> home LAN, etc.) never can.
>> I've seen enough counter-examples to convince me that this assumption
>> has no merit.
>
>The assumption is not "always" and "never" - but it is "very often" and
>"not so often". This should be compared to the risks of a useless
server
>just for fun. The next time there's a security hole in one of the
famous
>SMTPs, what do you think, how many of them will fix it soon?
>
>> Frankly, the "no e-mail from dynamic IPs" solution sounds like
Microsoft
>> reasoning. "Take power away from the user, they can't be trusted with
>> it."
>
>I'm not interested in M$, nor do I use their stuff.
>
>> The philosophy of Debian and Linux and open-source in general
has a lot
>> to do with giving power to individual users/administrators.
>> There are _lots_ of aspects of a computer system that can be destructive
>> (to others, not just locally) if they're misconfigured. The Linux
way
>> of dealing with this is to package things with sane defaults, and
>> educate people to configure their systems properly. Your solution
is to
>> take away useful functionality for fear that it might be abused.
>> On a Debian forum, don't be surprised if you meet stiff opposition to
>> this idea.
>
>There's nothing bad in giving the power to the users. That's why I use
>linux. Nevertheless there's a responsibility in using that power, i.e.:
>Don't expose services to the net that you don't need. On your machine -
>play what you want, break it, crash it, have fun. But when connecting
to
>the net - be responsible.
>
>If you have use in a mailserver: Do it. But I often have the feeling
>that people just like to have a server "like a /real/ server! kewl!"
>with lots of useless risks. Having ftp online for getting a file once a
>year. Hell. After 6 month they don't even remember /which/ ftpd
they are
>running. Compare that to a guy whose whole-day-job it is to read
>security bulletins and care for machines. Yes, not all providers work
>that way. But many more than homeusers.
>
>Bye, Ratti
>
>--
> -o) fontlinge | Font management for Linux | Schriftenverwaltung
in Linux
> /\\ http://freshmeat.net/projects/fontlinge/
>_\_V http://www.gesindel.de https://sourceforge.net/projects/fontlinge/
>
>Attached file
>Save attachment
>View attachment as text
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
>
>
Reply to: