> > that isn't what always happens. Theoretically, users of the DUL accept
> > the fact that they won't receive email from dynamic IP addresses. But,
> > as we've just seen, not all dynamic IP users are spammers. I think the
> > DUL is an inferior solution. Who says dynamic IP email is bad? What
>
> Someone has already posted here the correct explanation for why dynamic
> IP email *IS* bad, even when not considering the spam accountability issues
> described above: it is very often the case that remote mail servers suffer
> from lapses of inavailability: either because of network connectivity
> problems, because of shutdowns, and so on. Mailing list administrators are
> well aware of the fact, and you usually see messages hanging around for
> hours in the mail queue waiting to be sent. Anyway, when you send email
> directly from your dynamic IP, and the remote server does not answer, what
> do you do? You shouldn't give up, because the server may be temporarily
> down, but you can't retry later because the user may disconnect the connection
> to the ISP in a minute! The solution is to send the message through your
> ISP's server, which is connected to the Internet 24/7.
The solution is to queue the mail and try again the next time you connect.
I'm obviously not suggesting that every end-user send their mail directly from
their node. But there is no technical reason NOT to do so, and moderately
sophisticated users -- not to mention non directly connected organizations --
often choose do it.
The DUL philosophy implies that doing this is in some way wrong, which is
nonsense.
> > will happen with IPv6? I also think that it's wrong to force users to
> > use their ISP's mail hub. (Or worse; invisibly redirect SMTP traffic
> > to that host.)
>
> What does IPv6 have to do with these issues?
IPv6 addresses obtained using stateless address autoconfiguration are as
anonymous as dynamic IPv4 address. Should they be blacklisted as well?
That sort of defeats the purpose for one the IPv6 design goals.
> Blocking direct port-25 traffic is a very interesting anti-spam measure
> that I haven't seen implemented before, and while it may sound "bad" and
> anti-freedom, I can't see what harm it can actually do to "normal" users,
> not spammers.
It does not just ``sound "bad" anti-freedom''; it IS.
... forcing law-abiding citizens a method of communication
between themselves is completely contradictory to the freedom of
speech principle.
Sound familiar? It's an excerpt from message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> which you sent to this list
with regards to the Israeli encryption laws as you perceived them.
I see absolutely no difference between that, and forcing people to go through
an ISP's smarthost for mail.
> > will get listed. The ORBS database also lists some hosts which relay
> > mail only for e.g. the ORBS test machine, and so are NOT really a risk
> > to the Internet. Sites using the ORBS database implicitly choose not
>
> This is not true.
It is true. Have you any evidence that the ORBS testing methodology can
discern whether a host is relaying just for them, or for the entire world?
> A machine cannot "accidentally" relay mail only for
> ORBS's test machines, and not to any other machine on the Internet. How
> can this happen???
Did I say ``accidentally''?
I can configure my machine to relay mail only when that mail is submitted by
the ORBS testing machine, in order to demonstrate that the ORBS technology is
broken. My machine will get listed in the ORBS database, although it isn't a
risk to the rest of the net.
Btw, this has been done, and that machine got listed in the ORBS database.
> There's a different issue, of second-hand relaying, e.g., some ISP may
> have a client using their mail server (smarthost) and that client's
> mail server has an open relay: but this issue is solvable too if the ISP
> cared to solve it.
It is the fact, that the ISP's smarthost is NOT an open to third-party
relay. ORBS will still list it. (Though they now give the ISP some time
to fix the problem before listing them.)
ORBS has also listed ISPs who failed to receive their warning message
because the ORBS robot sent it to the incorrect address.
ORBS will list any open SMTP relay that uses other methods to protect from
abuse (e.g. rate limiting).
ORBS is as broken as the DUL, if for different reasons. (Btw, there are
convincing arguments that the ORBS testing essentially amounts to spamming.)
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
