[MPlayer-dev-eng] to michael

Thu May 25 17:05:48 CEST 2006

On Thursday, 25 May 2006 at 14:26, Romain Dolbeau wrote:
> > They don't label people. They list IPs from which spam was received
> > (for example, to spamtrap addresses).
> 
> Except sometimes they blacklist entire IP range, not just single IP
> address. That's unacceptable.

For you. Not for me. http://www.nanae.org/thank_the_spammers.html

> > 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.
> 
> That's pure BS. ISP don't have to know who is running a mail server ;
> that's not their business.

These days, they do and it is their business. Otherwise they're
irresponsible.

> If I want to run a mail server on my dynamic IP, it's my problem.

Yes, it is.

> And anyone who blacklist may server is discriminating against me.

ROTFL.

> It's the old "one of the kind is guilty,
> punish everyone" way. If that one is applied to a particular group
> (ethnic, religious, social, whatever) it's called racism. Why not when
> it's the dynamic IP users group ?

If I block direct SMTP connections from dynamic IPs, I'm not preventing you
from sending e-mail to me. You can still send via your provider's mail
gateway.

> > It's not extortion. They do not profit from it. And if you sent spam,
> > why shouldn't you atone for it?
> 
> Pure BS against. You shoudln't have to pay if someone else in the same
> IP range has sent spam, or if someone else previously using the same
> dynamic IP sent spam.

You shouldn't send e-mail directly to MXs from a dynamic IP.

> You don't condemn people for living in the same street as a murderer.

Bad analogy. ISPs are hardly ever entirely listed because of a single spam
incident.

> SORBS behavior is unacceptable. Other dns
> blacklist don't have the same policy, and it doesn't cause them
> problems.

Don't use SORBS then.

[...]
> > Everyone's liberties end at my network. I have every right not to
> > receive e-mail from anyone based on any criteria I want. I am NOT
> > limiting anyone's freedom in ANY way that way.
> 
> As long as *all* you users are aware of what you're doing. Or as long as
> it's a company server and the bosses are aware. If you're selling a
> service, it's *not* your right to prevent your customer to receive any
> mail they want to, including spams. I'm currently fighting my ISP who
> prevent 'at' jobs result from reaching me. I *want* those mails.

That's a given.

> > That's not stopping spam. See below. [snip] > That's not stopping spam.
> 
> rule #1 of justice : keep the innocents out. mail server : accept all
> rule #1 of legit mails.
> 
> The second line derive from the first. If you disagree w/ the first,
> well, there's not much anything except spending some times at the
> philosophy section of you local library can do.
> 
> Stopping spam should never, ever be the #1 priority of a server admin.
> If it is, then it's easy : shut down the server. I guarantee no more
> spams will be coming to you or you users.

When spam clogs your links that's exactly what happens to your server.

> > That's pretending it never reached you, which is blatantly false.
> > Moreover, devnulling mail in this way may cause some legitimate mail to
> > get lost. It also costs cpu time and disk space. Rejecting spam instead
> > of receiving it is much more cost- and resource-effective and is IMHO
> > the only efficient method. I know you'll disagree.
> 
> It is, if you can guarantee at 100% it is spam *AND* the destination
> doesn't want spam.

IMHO it is efficient even if a small number of potentially wanted e-mail
gets rejected. Even that is much better than /dev/null'ing legitimate mail
because spamassassin classified it wrong. In the latter case, the sender
has no way of knowing that the mail didn't reach you. In the former, he
at least has the bounce.

> If I want my spam, no-one should prevent me of getting it.

Agreed.

> > Bad analogy. That is a list of people. A list of IPs is NOT a list of
> > people. An IP blacklist is like a list of dangerous city districts.
> 
> Huh ? We're back on the justice analogy with a vengeance here. What
> you're saying is you won't accept in you store people with an address in
> a dangerous city district ?

Apparently my analogy was bad, too. Think of a list of dangerous districts
used by a taxi company. They just won't drive you there.

> Because that's exactly what blacklisting of IP is doing. Guilt by
> geographical proximity...

Sort of. But remember, people paying the same ISP that the spammer is using
are in fact supporting spam operations. So either the spammer should be
booted or the customers should leave (or accept limited mail
deliverability).

Regards,
R.

-- 
MPlayer developer and RPMs maintainer: http://rpm.greysector.net/mplayer/
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
	-- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan