[MPlayer-dev-eng] to michael

[Rich Felker]

On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 06:44:58PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> Granted, it's not only about hardware resources, but still spam costs all
> of us.

And as citizens of a world that strives for freedom and justice, we
must all accept that we must bear that cost until spammers are
stopped, rather than harming innocents to keep our own costs down.

> > And this is very wrong. Instead they should file charges and subpoena
> > the ISP to release the names of the spammers so they can be prosecuted
> > and sent to jail.
> 
> You see, spam isn't a crime in every country in the world, so you can't do
> that. I agree that it would be best for everybody, but we're stuck with
> something else instead. Ever heard about UDP[1] (and no, I don't mean the
> protocol)?

Very few spammers remain permenantly in a country where spam is legal.
They can be arrested crossing borders, etc. Also anyone doing spam
across international borders is probably also involved in other crimes
(smuggling, illegal medicine trade, ...) and could be charged with
these offenses instead.

> > > > > > And anyone who blacklist may server is discriminating against me.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ROTFL.
> > > > 
> > > > What's so funny ? Please let me in on the joke where IP-based
> > > > discrimination (or any other) becomes funny. it may not seem important
> > > > to you, but dicrimination is important to some people.
> > > 
> > > The notion that this is discrimination is funny.
> > 
> > Stop laughing, it's not funny. Maybe you think it's ok for only a few
> > multinational telcom corps to control email, but the rest of us don't.
> 
> And how exactly have multinational telecoms suddenly appeared in the equation?

By restricting more and more the set of 'who has certified SMTP
servers that are allowed to send email?'.

> > No, we claim the right to email people receiving internet connectivity
> > from your business, people who want to receive our emails.
> 
> What if they don't? What if they don't want e-mails from spam-supporting ISPs?

Again, libel. You're labelling senders as "spam-supporting ISPs" based
on their inclusion in SORBS and this is blatently false.

> Buy a smarthosting solution then. If you insist on paying an ISP who
> supports spammers then you have to accept some side-effects.

I don't and I'm sick of this libel against my ISP. I pay an ISP, one
of the few remaining ones in the whole world who provides customers
static IP, allows full usage of the advertised symmetric bandwidth,
provides reverse dns, allows customers to run servers, and refuses to
perform any kind of firewalling of ports/traffic even at customer
request. (I once requested them to block multicast traffic wasting my
bandwidth and they said they will not block anything. :)

This is what the internet is supposed to be. Not your lame "use your
isp's server!!" shit that fascist admins and huge corporations want to
turn the internet into.

> > No you are not. If you refused mail from all Jewish isps you would be
> > in jail. :)
> 
> Not. For example, I'm perfectly within my rights to refuse all e-mail from
> Israel. Not because they're Jewish, but because there's so much spam coming
> from there that it's more efficient to block the whole country and
> whitelist only our clients.

As a business, yes. If you're an ISP, no. An ISP blocking all email
from a particular country is not acceptable whatsoever and probably
illegal, especially if that country is Israel. ;)

Anyway I said Jewish not Israeli.

> > They should do whatever is necessary to ensure that not one legitimate
> > email is ever lost. Anything less is not doing their job.
> 
> I agree, but apparently, we have a different notion of "lost".

Yes. Lost to me means any case where it does not arrive at its
destination. Greylisting, forcing sender to confirm, etc. would all be
annoying but would not count as lost. Blacklisting with or without
rejection is definitely lost because the sender has no way to contact
the intended recipient.

> > Since when does it take more bandwidth anyway? The SMTP connection was
> > already made and you're already sending an error message.
> > Content-based filters should be able to detect spam after the first
> > few KB and close the connection; most spam is only a few KB anyway.
> > IMO the bandwidth argument is highly suspect...
> 
> Not when spam is 50-70% of your mail traffic. That is, it would've been
> if I hadn't been rejecting it.

You've already spent traffic rejecting it! That's my whole point. You
can't magically make that go away. And rejecting it after a couple KB
are received is not much more costly than rejecting it before DATA.
Yes it is more expensive, but the difference is OVERESTIMATED by
overzealous spam crusaders like yourself.

Rich