hi fermin
it depends on your AGB what the user is allowed to do and what not.
i think that banning dynamic ip pool ranges (lets say via RBL dynablocker,
etc.) is a temporarely solution to keep spam away.
i know a lot of customers that use exchange servers and use isdn routers
that connects each hour to the internet sending their emails and getting all
the mails that are waiting for that company. but even then the customers
should use their provider's SMTP server for the connection.
but anyway, this doesnt keep the spammer away from configuring a smart-host
entry to send his crap.
i think that ISP should watch to their customers and react on abuse messages
as fast as possible.
if an ISP reacts on spam (what econophone didn't do) he will probably not be
blacklistet as fast as possible in any RBL or other blacklists. well, this
is the way at least i do.
if ($noreaction && $contact_counter>3)
spammer-isp-> blacklist
;-)-steven -----Original Message----- From: Fermin Sanchez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fermin Sanchez Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 6:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt because of Spam blocks Hello Hm - pardon my asking, but: What (legal) reason should a dial-up user have to send mail over his own mail server? I don't see the problem in banning *dial-up*-ranges of providers which repeatedly fail to prevent spam from sometimes repeatedly the same sources. Regards Fermin From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Zalaba, Mike Sent: Wed 10/29/03 17:52 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt because of Spam blocks ....
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
