Re: Networking -- use of two Internet connections for one server with round robin DNS -- web okay, but should I do mail this way too?

[Joe <joe@jretrading.com>]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:50:20 +0200
lee <lee@yun.yagibdah.de> wrote:

> Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> writes:
> 
> > The contention is that mail from residential (whatever that means)
> > static and dynamic IPs must be eliminated. The users probably get
> > the same choice in the implementation of this policy as they do in
> > choosing whether to be sent spam.

I run a mail server. I decide whose mail I accept. Who else should?

To be honest, I wouldn't try to block email from consumers at source. It
would be easy to do, so I think the ISPs must agree with me. If that
were to happen, the spammers won't give up and get proper jobs, they'll
put more effort into compromising networks which are still permitted to
send mail. Since spam from consumers is so much easier to identify, I
think we're better off as we are.

> 
> The contention has pretty much been decided already :(  To decide
> whether to send and to receive mail is not up to the users.  Only the
> postmasters can do that.
> 
> It is not surprising that they are striving hard to keep and to extend
> their powers, or is it?  Only at first glance, it's somewhat confusing
> that they admit that 90--95% of all email is SPAM.  Instead of taking
> such a statement as evidence to support the assumption that their
> fight is rather futile, one might wonder what actually is on their
> agenda. Are they Borg?
> 
> 
There is a big advantage in blocking spam at the SMTP level. The body
of the email never gets transmitted. So that 90-95% are spam sending
*attempts*, many of which are denied after only a few packets are
transferred. Allowing them to be sent and then identified and discarded
from peoples' mailboxes would add a great deal of Internet traffic, and
there will never be enough bandwidth...

-- 
Joe