Hello Jack ,
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
> <snip>
> > White listing is NOT what was being discussed . Tho is can be
> > adventagous in the right circumstances .
> <snip>
> > And neither was Static addressing . Filtering was being discussed
> > based on some unknown (to me probably others as well) methodology .
> > Twyl , JimL
> White listing comes with any blacklist. The blacklists in particular
> being discussed were the @dynamics, like the PDL and dynablock at
> easynet. Both lists quite clearly state how they build their lists and
> what they are designed to block (dynablock only takes out dialup, and
> PDL takes out all dynamic addressing).
Query , How is it determined that the address in question is
dynamic or not ? Who/how/what makes that determination ?
This is the core of my concerns .
> Given the number of insecure client systems on dynamic addressing (proxy
> servers, trojans, etc), accepting email from dynamic addresses is
> becoming inherently more dangerous. If smarthosts can't be used from
> those addresses, then special whitelisting can be done.
Highly agreed . But sure am hoping some better solutions are
being developed .
> Of course, the person implementing email blocks of any type, especially
> public blacklists, must take some ammount of responsibility in
> maintaining legitimate email communications as dictated by users.
YES ! Without this there is no check &/or balance to the
procedure/s in use . Twyl , JimL
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS |
| Network Engineer | P.O. Box 854 | Give me Linux |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Coudersport PA 16915 | only on AXP |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
