Hello,
If you have a DSL Line supporting a off site building or something else,
isn't that a trust address to your network? Should the mail admin be
configuring mail clients at that address back to the mail server for
shipment? Food for thought.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Len Conrad
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] OT: AOL's got nerve
>(ie, you can't communicate with any legit business that is using a DSL
>line for the company).
That's not even half-way accurate description of the situation. DSL mail
servers can always receive mail.
As for them sending mail from DSL:
1. If the business-on-DSL can define a different PTR hostname, they escape
the "subscriber PTR hostname" filtering that the big network operators and
ISP are enabling (btw, do you think it is an accident that that systematic
PTR sub-domains are being implemented?). This a perfect discriminator
since the residential DSL spammers are condemned to the PTR hostname
filtering.
2. If above is not available, then the business-on-DSL mail server just
relays its outbound mail through the IP provider's SMTP gateway.
Both of these are free, and the second is always available, immediate and
easy.
Why would the typical business absolutely insist on NOT relaying its
outbound through the provider's SMTP gateway?
>And, of course, AOL has so many other options that are not so draconian.
While everybody would like 100% precision, if you have a horrendous,
expensive, unending, worsening problem that was costing you and your
clients dearly, impacting your bottom line daily, and there is a 98% or
99%-accurate automatic solution, what would you do?
>xample: add a header to all mail from a DSL server and give EACH user a
>setting they could click to decide to block or quarantine such email for
>review (with their own whitelist/address book to override such blocking) is
>only one such easy solution.
This is acceptable works if the user wants to, is able be involved (time +
money) in reviewing 99% of the crap in order to see if the 1% is really
receivable. This is insanity. Businesses say they don't want their
employees wasting their company time screwing wiht desktop
anti-spam. Dumping the 99% of the crap on the user to delete manually in
order to see if the 1% is true or false positive.
Your dump-it-on-the-user "solution" also requires AOL to traffic all that
spam (100s, maybe 1000s, of GB per day) through their network and to the
users inbox and desktop. If you were AOL, what would you do?
>Yes they have to process all that nasty mail
Exactly, end of story. Users may want to do it at home (farm porn in your
kids' inbox), but businesses don't want employees doing it on company time.
And the reason most businesses DON'T report wasting $$$ on spam problems
anymore is that they have solved the problem at the SMTP server level, not
the desktop level.
>but the end effect to their users in spam control is the
>same or better with a better fp ratio (or at least not their doing blocking
>legit msgs).
Maybe, maybe not, but what is not "maybe" is the $$$ lost at the desktop
fingering through the junk.
A fully automatic 98%, 99% accurate server-level solution complemented by
manual handling of the 1% exception is the best way to go.
Len
_____________________________________________________________________
http://MenAndMice.com/DNS-training: New York; Seattle; Chicago
IMGate.MEIway.com: anti-spam gateway, effective on 1000's of sites, free
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
