On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> shimi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Or did you just use users dial-up/DSL/cable IP ranges in your test, > > which SHOULD be blacklisted (why would a home user need to emit SMTP > > traffic on his own instead of his ISP SMTP servers, where proper > > authentication and thus logging and auditing can be taken care of? > > I am sorry? Why shouldn't I be able to use my own SMTP server and > instead be forced to rely on someone else's that might or might not > work better than mine, be blacklisted, or whatever? Why should I > *need* my own SMTP server? Sorry, but it's none of anyone's > business. Avoiding the ISP's "logging and auditing" can be reason > enough. If _every_ spammer on earth (including "what do you wanr from us? we have an opt-out option!") would be sent to jail for a couple of years, I would totally agree with you. However, my filters block between _hundreds_ to _thousands_ of spam messages _per day_, most of them coming from... those addresses. So it makes some sense to have a list of them... In a perfect world, I would agree with you completely; It is a hassle to use a smarthost indeed. But until there would be some way of non-centralized origin-authenticated SMTP with a web-of-trust domain list (so people will not just register new domains to evade blacklisting) that you could configure a "positive-trust-threshold" you agree to receive mail from - I think that having an RBL that lists spamming netblocks is a Good To Have thing. It is the receiver who shall decide if s/he wishes to receive traffic from people listed there... better than blocking port 25 alltogether... Do you have any better solution? :) -- Shimi
