On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> > > And all the crime I've experienced was perpetrated by "those people."
> > > That's why I ready my pepper spray whenever one of "them" comes near
> > > me.
> >
> > Oh, come on...this sounds like the same BS logic that was used to argue
> > that SMTP servers should remain open relays...
>
> I was not involved in that debate. Nor do I carry pepper spray. Nor is
> the above point BS.
>
> If deliveries to a certain neighborhood are statistically more likely
> to be waylaid and robbed, then refusing to deliver to that
> neighborhood WILL diminish the number of robberies. Sadly, such a rule
> is actionable, as a US pizza vendor recently learned.
<snip completely invalid comparison>
> > > True, but even factually-based prejudice, when based on _correlation_
> > > rather than _causation_, is mighty risky business.
> >
> > Allowing UUNet dialup IPs direct access to my mail server has _caused_
> > alot more spam than I now get.
>
> Lots of filtering rules rely on _legitimate_ grounds for discarding
> email: RFC non-compliance, illegitimate or invalid DNS information,
> etc.. Discarding mail from dialups involves _violating_ the RFC
> (assuming the modems have proper A records) based on the _true_
> observation that origination from a modem _correlates_ with spam.
Modems don't have A records, dialup ports do. RFC1123 states that your
SMTP server must talk to domains with MX records, nothing about A records
alone.
> You can get away with exercising this prejudice, for now, because
> social stigma applies only to specific forms of prejudice.
sociology has nothing to do with this. You might as well be saying that
we're "prejudice" against open relays. Well, we are. If the open relay
or dialup port wants to sue me, then I'll take my chances.
> The irony is that your prejudice, were it widespread, would hurt a few
> Linux geeks like me--but would not affect spammers at all. If enough
> servers began rejecting mail from dialups, then spammers will start
> using smarthosts, or finding ISPs whose modems are named "wombat" and
> "cheetah", or adopting some other countermeasure.
tcpserver filters by ip address, not name. Besides, nobody said you can
get ALL of them, but that's no reason not to make the effort. My
suggestion to you would be to get a static IP. Once I get more address
space, I'm going to renumber, and all the dynamic IPs will be blocked for
outbound port 25 access, and the static IPs and static subnets will be on
a different /24 that isn't.
> Like all pattern-matching or profiling solutions, it is temporary, and
> relies for its effectiveness on its novelty and your domain's numeric
> insignificance.
Selective filtering is ALL about pattern-matching.
James Smallacombe Internet Access for The Delaware
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Valley in PA, NJ and DE
PlantageNet Internet Ltd. http://www.pil.net
=====================================================================
ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99
Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and
brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration.
=====================================================================
