Hi, Am Do, den 18.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 03:11: > on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:37:09PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote: > > Am Mi, den 17.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 01:21: > > > - There are highly specific filters and methods which can effectively > > > discriminate between spam and non-spam content. Activity-based > > > lists, Bayesian and content-based filters, reputation systems, > > > teergrubbing, rate-limiting, and the like. > > > > Yes, but. > > > > Why should /I/ install lots of software to enable others to have a > > mailserver on their DynIP? > > If you plan on being able to receive legitimate mail from legitimate > users, you'll have an interest. No, I am not interested. I reject that mail to force them to use a smarthost. > > But, at that point, I see the discussion drifting away, since my > > expression was not against having "a mail server" (BTW: What is a > > mailserver? POP3? SMTP? > > RTFRFC. Nonsense. > If you don't know the answer to _this_ question, you've got no basis for > participating intelligently in this conversation. And the answer is > trivial enough to research. Oh man, don't tell me you are _that_ ****** . "What is a mailserver" is not a question of RFCs, for that kind of discussion it is important to define what a "mailserver" is. Or very soon someone may ask me why I'm against someone running postfix without internet connection, since postfix provides SMTP services, and I said... > > it's just the "direct" mail communication between DynIP and recipient > > I'm against. There should be a smarthost that's always "on air", > > always accepts answers, is still there in 10 minutes and has a backup > > mx in a different network. > > This has been discussed at length previously on this list and elsewhere, > including in the links previously posted. > > Simply: ISP smarthosts are not universally appropriate, acceptable, or > reliable. I don't discuss that. If your provider is not reliable, get another provider. And I really ask, why a provider should be bad in smarthosting, but acceptable in routing your data? That makes no sense. > > > > This is *not* censorship, by the way. > > > > > > No. It's arbitrary discrimination. > > > > You are not discriminated - just use a smarthost > > You are not descriminated against. Just buy a house in a different > neighborhood. Help! Help! I am discriminated! I am forced to slow my car down to 50 km/h, and this f*cking nazi-communists even don't let me play with dynamite in _my_ house! You share a network neighbourhood with _others_. Your machine start connections to my machine, and when my machine want's to answer your machine half an hour later, _your_ machine is gone, or another machine is answering, or..., so your computer makes trouble. And I don't let you make trouble to my machine. It's just silently dropped like a portscan. > > A DynIP-mailserver /does/ indeed often(!) behaves more badly than a > > "normal" one. For example, mail to it must often stay on my server > > since the DynIP-Server just isn't online, has no backup-mx and it's > > more often source of spam. > > Again: the US originates 60%+ of all spam. Should the US be > blacklisted by all other countries? What's your acceptable > false-positive cutoff? My company has a little bureau in the US, I read mailinglists from US, etc., so I can't to that. If 60% of my spam came from china, yes, I'd block them. > Again: there are accurate, effective, specific filtering tools and > combat techniques available which _both_ protect your Inbox _and_ allow > for legitimate DynIP mailservers. 1. Proof that 2. There is no technology that let's my "real" server deal with another one with DynIP, since a DynIP is _dynamic_. My real mailserver cannot communicate with a machine that is "gone". 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/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil