On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 09:44:16PM -0800, the entity calling itself Brian Keefer stated:
> > What's regretful about this behavior is not that the Internet gives them the > > freedom to deliver their scummy payloads - the regretful thing is that they > > are either desparate or unprincipled enough to abuse this freedom. > > Yes, so why punish those that abide by the laws (well, thanks to > Congress most spammers are now "lawful", but let's just use California > and Virginia's laws for the sake of argument)? Punish??? Your idea of punishment is requiring someone to send his mail through an approved relay? > > I believe Mr. Micakovic's ISP deserves a gold-plated "atta' boy" for > > imposing this requirement. I hope that they disclosed this > > restriction to Mr. Micakovic before he signed up, but in any case their > > policy will reduce the amount of spam on the Internet. > Not necessarily. Most non-"lawful" spam these days comes from > compromised boxes. Many times they have dynamic IPs, many times they > don't. It just depends who was careless and what software/OS is > vulnerable Oh puh-leeze, let's deal with real numbers here, at least. I've got mine: http://abuse.easynet.nl/spamstats.html Where are yours? > > <snip a bunch of been there, done that> > < snip a bunch of idealistic meandering > I don't think you get it; you never will get it until you've been there. > Oh by the way, I happen to work for an e-mail security company that is > heavily involved with anti-spam projects, just in case you think I'm > pontificating with no experience in the matter. Well that's great. Let us hear from you again when you've solved the spam problem without filtering dynamic ip addresses. Rgds, Jay Moore
