On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:54, "Robert Cates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spam Black ("Block") Lists? Not a good thing in my opinion!! I mean,
> e-mail servers can be configured NOT to relay for unauthorized domains
> anyway. I'm not an advocate of e-mail Spamming. I just feel that the
> control or blocking should be left up to the individual user. Just like
> it's my choice which "Office" package I want to (buy and) use. ;-)
Should we leave control of crime to the victim as well? Or do you think that
a professional police force is better?
When users try to deal with spam they often complain to the wrong people
(think about joe-job's), they take the wrong actions (think about sending
email to the "remove" address in a spam), and they don't have the competence
to do it properly (think about the people who block postmaster mail etc, or
who just block everything and complain to their ISP).
It's better for the ISP to have an anti-spam system that blocks most of the
spam that customers want blocked and gets a small enough number of
false-positives that they don't mind. Some ISPs find that SpamCop's DNSBL
fits this description...
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
