Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tapota : > Note: I am not maintainer of this package. > > Am 2005-01-16 17:28:02, schrieb Mathieu Roy: >> >> >People with dynamic IPs are free to run servers. However, it has >> >proven to be a spam sign. >> >> How so? Any statistics on false positive of this test? > > Now I am working sinc 03/1999 with Debian and never goten one message > which was send directly to me and it was not SPAM. I get every day > between 500 and 8000 SPAMs in the mailbox I use to post here. > > So my E-Mail is worldwide known to SPAMers. More then 80% of the > SPAMs coming to my Mailbox without using a smtp-relay. Unfortunatly > my ISP in germany use the false DUL-Server or nothing at all, and I > must filter myself. > >> >What users SHOULD do, is run their own server, but route their mail >> >through their ISP's SMTP server. (exim smarthost) >> >> So you are saying that Debian does not consider users entitled to run >> their own SMTP server, *independantly of their ISP*. >> >> I do not think software shipped by Debian by default should >> criminalize dynamic IP users by assuming they are guilty of something. > > $USER are not criminalized, they are protected by DUL-SPAMers
In the name of protection, we can implement whatever crap (SPF, Patriot Act, that's criminalization in the name of protection). > >> But well, it is now a common thing for debian package maintainers to >> restrict debian users freedom. I guess there is no point in arguing >> here. > > I and many others are realy happy with this setings... > But if you want, I can bounce the DUL-SPAM to you :-) The problem is the fact that we have here a _default_ setting which can harm legitimate users. I run public mailing list and I had to deal with the case of completely legitimate mails sent to the lists that were tagged as spam because of these DUL tests. I was made aware of the problem by the users that got their mails wrongly tagged. I lowered the score of the DUL tests. But will Debian endorse the fact that its package by default create highly previsible false positives, and may be a true nuisance for people that do not want to rely on ISP smtp (which are not all so reliable)? As I said before 1.7 is definitely an high score for such a dumb test. It is not like this test was positively making a difference, it is not like it is a must have test. -- Mathieu Roy +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | General Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ | | Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/ | | Not a native english speaker: | | http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
