[ snips ]
I've marked this ot, so that those who aren't interested can tune out.
This will be my last communique on the issue - back to Linux which is what
counts.
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:18:50 -0600 Kurt Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 09:17:51PM -0600, Collins Richey wrote:
> >
> > Now I'll get bitchy.
> >
> > <rant>
> > 1. You provided no warning for this unilateral action. Nobody has a
> clue
>
> By long tradition, system administrators are free to do as they see
> fit with the system(s) they administer. While it may have been more
> courteous to users to have provided some warning in advance, I
> maintain that you are out of line to complain about the unilateral
> action because, bottom line, you get to use, for free and without
> strings, a service someone else provides. I know you know this, but
> perhaps it helps to be reminded. Eh?
>
Granted that system administrators can do as they please, but it makes no
sense whatsoever to take action without warning and to provide no means
for a remedy, ie sysadmin address not responding to quieries about the
problem. "All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
There would have been no bitchiness or concern on my part, had I been able
to reach the sysadmin for an explanation.
BTW, this is totally out of character for Doug who in the past has always
provided timely warnings of any actions that would affect the service.
Yes, I love the free service, and I've said so many times. I would even
pay a reasonable fee to have access to this group. Nevertheless, this
action was simply wrong and very short sighted (IMNSHO). I'm not sure
whether Mike Andrew's comments to Doug made it onto the general
distribution, but he has reason to believe that the orbl group may be
black listing certain ISPs without good reason in order to further their
(orbl's) political goals, ie a power ploy.
Also, as I pointed out earlier, I've subscribed to a lot of Linux-related
email groups over the past couple of years without seeing any appreciable
spam, and never have I encountered this type of blocking. At least one of
the groups is not a restricted list, and even this group has received one
spam in 6 months.
>
> > when they get a "return address denied by mail service" message. I
> tried
> > unsubscribing and resubscribing, but that did no good. The icing on
> the
>
> The mail headers provided all of the information you needed.
Yes, you with your many years experience may fully understand mail
headers, but I for one (and I'm sure there must be others) do not. The
proper way to do this would be to send a reply (a courtesy) to the sender
telling him what action will be taken and why. As you allude below, it
only takes a few lines of code on the server to do this; such action may
even be automatically built in to the mail server, for all I know.
> Doug is
> right, too, if an ISP doesn't close an open mail relay, even though
> they are not now a spam source, they *will* eventually become one.
> Code Red should remind everyone how easy it is to scan a range of
> addresses. It only takes about 10 more lines of code to scan every
> port on an address for one that can be probed more completely for
> potential exploit.
>
The question being - is a given ISP really an open mail relay or are they
being black listed for no good reason?
Now back to the regular programming.
--
Collins Richey
Denver Area
Gentoo_rc5 XFCE
_______________________________________________
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc
->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
