Right. I'll do that by summing up my point of view: 1. Providers should by default block port 25 outgoing for their 'free internet' dial-up customers. 2. Paying customers, either dial-up or xDSL from dynamic IP ranges should be forced to use the provider's SMTP smart host. Some rules on that smart host, e.g. number of connections, mails per hour etc. would certainly help lessen the pain from SPAMmers and imo not considerably lead to collateral damage amongst 'behaving' customers. 3. No default blocking for xDSL customers with one or more static IP addresses, and no (auto) smart host obligation. Of course IP addresses for these customers must come from separate IP subnets than the ones mentioned in 1.) and 2.). Regards Fermin
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Steven Glogger
Sent: Thu 10/30/03 14:22
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt because of Spam
blocks
hi fermin
i think the best would be, that you get back to the main subject why this mailing has
been started.
-steven
-----Original Message-----
From: Fermin Sanchez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fermin Sanchez
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 2:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt because
of Spam blocks
Hello Steven
Hm - probably got carried away a bit at that ;-). Just imagine, Mr. F�rst
downloading my PGP public key and sending me a personalized, encrypted commercial mail
offering me a - gosh! - pair of black socks ;-). Would probably make it through my
first two anti-spam layers :-|
Regards
Fermin
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Steven Glogger
Sent: Thu 10/30/03 13:52
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt because
of Spam blocks
hi fermin
what the hell has PGP with SMTP to do? it uses the same communication channel
;-)
And more: what the hell has PGP with SPAM to do??
greetzs
steven
PGP:
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci214292,00.html or
www.pgpi.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Fermin Sanchez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fermin Sanchez
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 1:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt
because of Spam blocks
Hi
Ever heard about PGP? As long as my mail is PGP encrypted, I'd invite
about any agency to take their best shot at it. For customers who don't want to send
encrypted mail (or are not capable of), there's still the possibility to get an
xDSL-Connection with a static IP address. imo Providers should only block dial-up and
other dynamic IP ranges from sending mail. As soon as the IP address can be clearly
assigned to a company or private person AND there's still SPAM from it, the offender's
provider could then block outgoing port 25 connections. Again, let me know if I'm
oversimplyfying the matter ...
Regards
Fermin
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Peter Keel
Sent: Wed 10/29/03 19:48
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt
because of Spam blocks
* on the Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:27:12PM +0100, Fermin Sanchez wrote:
> 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.
Simple: Running an outgoing-Mailserver on its own. Why? ISPs got
to friggin keep the logs of who sent out mail from our servers
for _six_ month because some wannabe-gestapoheads decided so.
That's a pretty strong incentive to run your own mailserver.
Seegras
--
Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
----------------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog%40swinog.ch/
<<winmail.dat>>
