[MPlayer-dev-eng] to michael

[Romain Dolbeau]

> They don't label people. They list IPs from which spam was received (for
> example, to spamtrap addresses).

Except sometimes they blacklist entire IP range, not just single IP
address. That's unacceptable.

> I'm repeating myself, but SORBS isn't denying service to anyone.
> Dynamic/generic DNS IP ranges are known to be infested with spam-spewing
> zombies. That's why they should be pre-emptively listed. It's up to the
> ISP to label them correctly in the DNS if there is a mail server there.

That's pure BS. ISP don't have to know who is running a mail server ;
that's not their business. If I want to run a mail server on my dynamic
IP, it's my problem. And anyone who blacklist may server is
discriminating against me. It's the old "one of the kind is guilty,
punish everyone" way. If that one is applied to a particular group
(ethnic, religious, social, whatever) it's called racism. Why not when
it's the dynamic IP users group ?

> It's not extortion. They do not profit from it. And if you sent spam, why
> shouldn't you atone for it?

Pure BS against. You shoudln't have to pay if someone else in the same
IP range has sent spam, or if someone else previously using the same
dynamic IP sent spam. You don't condemn people for living in the same
street as a murderer. SORBS behavior is unacceptable. Other dns
blacklist don't have the same policy, and it doesn't cause them
problems.

> Tricked? ROTFL. Any administrator who uses blocking lists without
> veryifying their effects on his services is clearly incompetent.

We're 100% in agreement on that.

> Everyone's liberties end at my network. I have every right not to receive
> e-mail from anyone based on any criteria I want. I am NOT limiting
> anyone's freedom in ANY way that way.

As long as *all* you users are aware of what you're doing. Or as long as
it's a company server and the bosses are aware. If you're selling a
service, it's *not* your right to prevent your customer to receive any
mail they want to, including spams. I'm currently fighting my ISP who
prevent 'at' jobs result from reaching me. I *want* those mails.

> That's not stopping spam. See below. [snip] > That's not stopping spam.

rule #1 of justice : keep the innocents out. mail server : accept all
rule #1 of legit mails.

The second line derive from the first. If you disagree w/ the first,
well, there's not much anything except spending some times at the
philosophy section of you local library can do.

Stopping spam should never, ever be the #1 priority of a server admin.
If it is, then it's easy : shut down the server. I guarantee no more
spams will be coming to you or you users.

> That's pretending it never reached you, which is blatantly false.
> Moreover, devnulling mail in this way may cause some legitimate mail to
> get lost. It also costs cpu time and disk space. Rejecting spam instead of
> receiving it is much more cost- and resource-effective and is IMHO the
> only efficient method. I know you'll disagree.

It is, if you can guarantee at 100% it is spam *AND* the destination
doesn't want spam. If I want my spam, no-one should prevent me of
getting it.

> Bad analogy. That is a list of people. A list of IPs is NOT a list of
> people. An IP blacklist is like a list of dangerous city districts.

Huh ? We're back on the justice analogy with a vengeance here. What
you're saying is you won't accept in you store people with an address in
a dangerous city district ? Because that's exactly what blacklisting of
IP is doing. Guilt by geographical proximity...

> You're welcome not to use them or any provider that uses them. Why do you
> think so many ISPs use SORBS and other blacklists?

Because they're morons ? Most ISP only care about making money. As long
as customers don't complain, they don't care if legit mail is lost.
That's unnaceptable. ISP aren't doing their jobs. *NOT A SINGLE MAIL*
should be stopped unless the client as explicitedly stated he was
delegating the spam-blocking to the ISP. If I want all my spams, my ISP
shouldn't prevent me from getting them. For the ISP know, I could be
writing a thesis on SPAM.

> Anyway, if you wish to discuss this issue further, please do so in an
> appropriate place, like news:news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting. I consider
> this thread closed, because it's highly off-topic.

It is, isn 't it ? Except this problem of abusive mail server admins is
causing problem to everyone trying to get something done with the
internet.

I block spam on my company server, but every users has been notified and
can opt-out of it they want (they don't ;-). And I never blacklist IPs,
spamassassin scoring system is very efficient at detecting spams.

-- 
Romain Dolbeau
<romain at dolbeau.org>