>>Should we leave control of crime to the victim as well? Or do you think
that
>>a professional police force is better?
Well I do not remember ever seeing on the evening news or morning news paper
that somebody was hurt or worst killed from a Spam attack! Have you ever
been a victom of crime? Has somebody in your family been killed by a drunk
driver? Can anybody who's been a victom of crime honestly say "oh it's ok,
but I sure wish a police was with me when it happened"? Anyway, this is
heading down another road, and yes, I am fully aware of the importance of
our police department/force, in every country.
>>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).
Somebody who blocks everything, or ignorantly complains to their ISP, needs
to be educated, not hand-held. That "education" in my mind is a service and
responsibilty of the ISP, an if it's a matter of getting too many phone
calls per day, there can easily be an FAQ posted on the ISP web site. Or
maybe more appropriately it should be the responsibility of the software
vendor providing the Anti-Spam software.
>>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...
Who on the ISP side knows what the customer wants (blocked)? Are the ISPs
calling all of their customers and asking? So the world will come to a day
when all Internet users won't have much choice, won't know what's getting
blocked, won't know who's controlling what, won't know who's making what
decision, the largest ISP will take-over the competition, and before we know
it, there will be an Internet monopoly much the same as the PC software
industry of the past 20 or more years.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Robert Cates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: Which Spam Block List to use for a network?
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
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
