[MPlayer-dev-eng] to michael

[Reimar Döffinger]

Hi,
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 01:59:11PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> Apologies to everyone for this off topic thread, this is my last reply.

I agree this discussion should not exist, but I can't hold back comment
on a few statements that do not make sense to me...

> > and as "dynamic ip" (which also results in wrongful denial of service).
> 
> I'm repeating myself, but SORBS isn't denying service to anyone.
> Dynamic/generic DNS IP ranges are known to be infested with spam-spewing
> zombies. That's why they should be pre-emptively listed. It's up to
> the ISP to label them correctly in the DNS if there is a mail server
> there.

No, if they are SPAM-spewing zombies they should be blocked from the
internet by their ISP instead of half-blacklisting them for email while
letting them continue to spread viruses, participate in DDOS attacks etc. pp.

> > As for extortion, requiring a $50 "donation" to remove yourself from a
> > being listed as a spammer (and the resulting damages due to your
> 
> It's not extortion. They do not profit from it. And if you sent spam,
> why shouldn't you atone for it?

This is what makes no sense at all. Either they want to fight spam, then
why allow spammers to unblacklist themselves, no matter what the fee?
To me, the conclusion is that they fully expect that "donation" to get
mostly from non-spammers...
Regardless of their intentions, if they didn't think that this will give
them a bad name, they must be stupid beyond imagination. As usual,
impression is more important than facts.

> > network not being able to send to ISPs who have been tricked into
> > using SORBS) is blatent extortion.
> 
> Tricked? ROTFL. Any administrator who uses blocking lists without
> veryifying their effects on his services is clearly incompetent.

Well, at least some don't care enough about laws to react to abuse. Which is
why I don't receive any mail from tiscali servers anymore, they are
sending more spam than anyone else in my past experience (of course,
only counting that which got through any other filters).

> > 2. send spammers to jail for life (or better, lynch them).

Doesn't help if you can't get them...

> You're welcome not to use them or any provider that uses them.
> Why do you think so many ISPs use SORBS and other blacklists?

I guess there are good reasons (including some I can come up with
myself), but what know as "greylisting" (having to wait some time before
you can send a message) seems like a much saner approach towards
handling email from dynamic IPs.

Greetings,
Reimar Döffinger