> As one of my posts in this thread said, I don't have that list of > networks/netmasks, so blocking by the PTR hostname was a very > effective equivalent.
It was this (theoretical) RegEx example that provoked the bulk of the traffic on this thread, though now the topic has changed to another (theoretical) tactic of blocking all or some DSL IPs. The RegEx concept, to its strong credit, at least was aimed at dynamic DSL users, i.e. those who presumably were violating ToS. This new drop-all-DSL concept is far more flawed and, I believe, out of touch with what non-gorilla businesses must do to survive. > If they can segregate their IP allocations so they they have some > nets as dynamic and with the ISP's generic PTR hostname (this is > what AOL and I would target), and the have other nets for their > legit clients, then the latter would not be systematically blocked, > while the former would be clearly in AOL and my crosshairs. Like I said, hoping this was as far as you were saying you wanted to go, those violating an existing "no servers" ToS clause should be eagerly, voraciously blocked. But you're coming at this from two different angles: what're you going to put in place? Do you indeed want to block these "no servers" servers only--or all DSL circuits, as you say elsewhere? Since you don't have access to the broken-down netblock list, are you just going to "round up" and kill all DSL connections as soon as you can find a way to match on any kind of DSL? That's your call, but yours is a far more draconian policy than AOL has shown *any* evidence of keeping, so really "AOL" shouldn't be in the subject line anymore. This doesn't mean the policy won't go over with *your* ISP customer base, but I think you should need a big ol' "YMMV" before suggesting it to corporate admins who may think that since an experienced person recommends it, it's good to go (next to go: their jobs). > Anybody got any numbers of DSL clients who want to run their own > mailservers? I bet it's minuscule, both in number of IPs and the > volume legit msgs, in comparsion with the number of abusive IPs and > the volumes of spam. Bet away, but if neither of us have any numbers, the jury is firmly out--but what's "minuscule"? For SMEs in the NY Metro area, business SDSL is extremely common--but what's "common"? It all, as stated ad nauseum, depends on the FP rate and user response. And since the total number of individual spammers in the world is insanely disproportionate to the amount of mail they generate out of all mail, that ratio is going to carry over to probably any connection type except dial-up. IOW, it's a tautology to say that, for circuit type X, the ratio of legit messages/spam messages will be much, much, much lower than the ratio of legit customers/spammer customers. But that wouldn't lead any enterprise to outright block even the strongest examples of this rule. > DSL belongs to the telcos, world over. >From my US view, it belongs to the telcos because they killed/are killing the independent competition through poor inter-provider service, then followed up with marketing blitzes masking shoddy technology. Such tactics are almost precisely what some of us are suggesting AOL may be planning, though it's just a suggestion. > I really can't this sinister AOL motivation. they are not a big > players in DSL or broadband. Their rr unit is not even the dominant > Internet/cable provider. That they don't dominate now is far from evidence that they do not have plans to do so, and multiple posters have provided plausible evidence that, while some anti-spam tactics would have their primary payoff in customer retention, other tactics would have stronger effects in killing broadband competition. This may not favor an AOL-branded service, but rather the co-branded service that AOL for Broadband provides, with brilliant percentages for them. On the other hand, this may never work out that way at all. I understand that the dial-up market is a sinkhole on which they overbet long ago, and I think that AOL for Broadband BYOA (Bring Your Own Access) is the most honest thing I've seen from them in a while. Who knows? They may slink off into being a very reliable and respectable spamsafe mail hosting/childsafe web proxying entity, which would be an interesting development. I'd still resent them for the hell they caused when they were doing dial-up, but that would go away with time. > They aren't stupid. Blocking is always imprecise, always a > trade-off. I think they are stupid and, in a relatively endearing way, desperate. Certainly, this incident doesn't smack of smarts: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-1014827.html > DSL depends totally on the wire distance to the CO, the physics, not > the provider. <sigh>. *Of course* it depends on the quality of the provider. You evidently did/do not experience DSL as would a field consultant or average small business. See DSLReports, et al. for pages upon pages of evidence. >> As I said in one of my posts, the right provider knows how to >> connect CPE and DSLAM reliablyI don't give a hoot about, and >> generally would have no reason to trust--given the slim margins >> that most DSL ISPs run on-- > exactly, DSL belongs to the telcos, if not now, then med/long term, > world over. The LL unbundling is political window dressing, pro > forma game. The telcos will never play nice with the DSL > independents renting their copper. I don't know part of my passage you're commenting on here, but you did leave out the most important part, the last phrase "...their SMTP prowess." I'll say it again: whether telco or indy DSL provider, there is neither empirical nor theoretical reasons to believe that their SMTP skills and systems are superior to those of a small business with bright IT. -Sandy P.S. I might actually have *encouraged* AOL for home use in the past if they didn't provide such a vile temptation to small or solo businesses, to whom they cannot provide reliable service. As the personal account will always have far better payoffs for spammers, their extreme defensive measures would be far more reasonable if the only incoming traffic were personal-to-personal or spammer-to-personal. The presence of incoming business-critical mail to AOL (yes, the term is used in boardrooms the world over) is saddening. If it weren't for that phenomenon, there'd be somewhat less to argue about, since millions of 9-to-5 IT pros then couldn't care less what they did with their mail. ------------------------------------ Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------ 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/
