> > From: Len Conrad > > >And does the rDNS containing "DSL" in and of itself constitute a > > dynamic dsl > > >circuit? > > > > I don't even worry about the "dynamic" part. There is so much horrendous > > abuse from DSL and cable lines, the static vs dynamic issue is in > > the noise. > > Yet, didn't this start with justification that the dynamic DSL mail servers > had no accountability, no one to pursue if they were sending spam (ie, no > one to sue) and allowed spammers to use muliple IP's to hide behind. >
This novel did mention something simular to what you state. > Static DSL has none of these problems and I would imagine is almost entirely > legit business customers (after all, dynamic DLS here is a bout $40/month, > including the line and internet service, while the cheapest fixed IP is > about $150 a month and goes up from there, with every exposed IP address an > extra cost). Most companies I deal with have firewalls to prevent their > blocks from being taken over and run antivirus on all systems (unlike home > systems, where the cost of being down isn't measured in real dollars). > Those with mail servers take pains to prevent open relays. > fwiw, most of our spam or porn (sporn) comes from 'static' ip address. I haven't personally set down to do an exhaustive analysis of exactly what type of internet connectivity is used (xDSL, T1, DS3, etc.) that sends the most in sporn via static ip addresses. I believe the change, of this OT topic, is in part with AOL pulling the plug on the 'vanity rDNS' check-sum they put to use. Now I think they are just going to block via net range/ip address. Also I think the serious 'big gun' spammers have relocated there servers off shore to avoid US laws and/or ISP TOS agreements. > > If AOL is > > perceived as having a "spam problem" and Hotmail/MSN doesn't.... > > AOL has to > > reduce their spam problem just to retain current subscribers (and reduce > > AOLs current costs of fighting spam). > > And thus, the real purpose of their blocking .. just block more messages per > user per day, and they win the "service provided" press wars. Only if the > loss of users due to bad press from blocking too many legit mails outweighs > the positive press from "blocks 88 spam mails per user per day" will they > change. > I think this is an outstanding marketing ploy and move on AOL's part. Our small company has a 'much' harder approach to spam control then AOL would ever dream of using. The companies that pay us to secure, filter (sporn), and ensure virus free email expect us to provide them this type of service. Just yet another view from a far.. ~Rick ___________________________________________________________________ Virus Scanned and Filtered by http://www.FamHost.com E-Mail System. 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/
