Quoting Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Since when is forcing an SMTP server to accept your mail a > punishment? > Tom, you're on the wrong train. You have it backward. It's the > broadband users who want to run their own services that are being > punished.
How is this a punishment? It's saying, 'I cant trust you to run your own power plant, so we aint gonna accept power from your possible at home nuclear reactor power by old smoke detectors'. > It's both. Many spammers are people with broadband connections, > looking to use it to make a few extra bucks. *blink* Elaborate? Are you saying this is GOOD or BAD thing? > > Again, you're not being put in jail. > So what? I'm still being restricted without having done anything to > deserve it... It's still a punishment. You've never gone so damned fast your car goes airborn while taking that exit ramp. But you KNOW your being restricted by that 'Speed limit' sign. > > They're saying, "I don't want you calling me". Tell me.. Anyone > > here have a caller ID block on unknown numbers? > Woah. Wrong. They're saying, "I don't want you calling anyone I > provide service to." Since when is it OK for the phone company to > block calls from telemarketers? You've missed the boat here too. > Caller ID blocking is fine, as it represents the individual making a > choice whether or not to receive those calls. It is NOT ok for the > service provider to make those decisions on behalf of all its > customers. Yes, but in the phone companies case, they have the ability to shut OFF service to people who might abuse it. In the case of the net, they have no such ability. Your point is very valid though. They are making that decision on behalf of their customers. Lemme stew some more on it. It's also, however, causing massive overloads on many email systems, with a gazzilion times more trafic then needed. Just REJECTING those emails takes trafic.. > > Oh my GOD man. They rejected your SMTP email. Shesh. Since the > > protocol has no built in method of authentication, this is the best > > they can do. You can either eat spam, or do something like this. > Or you can go after the spammers. Which is the only right way to go > about the problem. Make spamming not worth the potential gains. Fine > the bastards for every spam sent. And how DO you find them? Hrm? I can, right now, open a domain name under your name, toss it on the net with a 'generic' IP, made possible by easy access to the net, open up a telnet prompt, pipe in the SMTP commands, and 'Poofta!' LOOK ME, I'm a SPAM KING! > > They are blacklisting addresses of known open relays. > Wrong wrong wrong. They are blacklisting entire IP blocks, where some > (relatively) few bad eggs live. I dont think either of us can prove or disprove this one, really.. But I highly doubt that there was a board meeting over repressing the rights of consumers to lock down broadband services by restricting the acceptance of SMTP connections from anyones living room. > > Could very well be. But this is one move that, while being annoying > as all > > hell, is a viable attempt to securing something. > It's still wrong. Really? I cant finger someone, is it WRONG that they shutdown the fingerd to lock down the box? > > You know.. The same reason why some here always include their PGP > signature > > to validate identiy? > No, very different. The latter is to provide information for those > who may want it. The former is to block communications from an entire > class of people just because it *might* be unwanted. You're not being blocked. They didn't block your social from ever sending email. They simply are ignoring packages from an address range that tends to have a VERY high rate of mailbombs. Sure, this sucks. And you now need to use a PO Box. -- Thomas Charron -={ Is beadarrach an ni an onair }=- _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss