[MPlayer-dev-eng] to michael

[Aurelien Jacobs]

On Thu, 25 May 2006 17:05:48 +0200
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik at rangers.eu.org> wrote:

> On Thursday, 25 May 2006 at 14:26, Romain Dolbeau wrote:
> > 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 ?
> 
> If I block direct SMTP connections from dynamic IPs, I'm not preventing you
> from sending e-mail to me. You can still send via your provider's mail
> gateway.

That's wrong.
Well that's what I was thinking some times ago.
But nowadays, big ISPs also have their SMTP servers blacklisted by SORBS !
Millions of legit people are using smtp.free.fr which then travel thru
servers such as smtp5-g19.free.fr which are blacklisted !
For me, this simple fact implies that SORBS lists have no value and
shouldn't be used.

Don't tell me that my ISP should ask SORBS to be removed from their list.
If my ISP don't use and don't trust SORBS, why would they care about it.

> > > 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 shouldn't send e-mail directly to MXs from a dynamic IP.

Why ?

> > > 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.
> 
> When spam clogs your links that's exactly what happens to your server.

If your servers can't handle the load, it's probably time to upgrade ?
If you simply want to reduce the load, SORBS might be a solution.
Refusing mails from half of the IP ranges could be another solution.
Let's drop 128.0.0.0/1 and you will get similar results than with SORBS...

> > > 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.
> 
> IMHO it is efficient even if a small number of potentially wanted e-mail
> gets rejected.

Well then it's maybe efficient at blocking spams, but not at serving mails.
Wasn't it supposed to be a mail server ?

Aurel