On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:51:13 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi
> 04 Feb 2001, "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SE> I don't want to give it any more time and energy than that.
> with ORBS _you_ don't give it any energy.
> you simply tell your SMTP server to look up ORBS.
> (or you ask your ISP to do that)
Asking or telling anybody to do anything requires effort and energy.
What the hell is ORBS anyway? You already know this stuff. To me it's
just alphabet soup. I don't want to be forced into "upgrading" my
software or hardware or change my personal methods in order to help
solve a problem that I don't percieve myself as being afflicted with.
Maybe you have the time and inclination to fight spam this way. I
just don't.
Since I changed my POP3 box I haven't had *any* spam show up. This was
a byproduct of losing shell access to PINE. In Pine I could delete
fifty messages in a second or so. Arachne is so slow compared to that.
Why did I lose my shell access? Because the large corporation that now
owns my ISP decided that shell access was "an unwarranted security
risk unjustified by the limited user demand".
So the idea that I may not be able to use even Arachne got me going.
I suppose I could just buy some stamps and envelopes.
> SE> I don't think there's any way to get rid of spam.
> I have gotten maybe 3 SPAM messages sincs 1.1.2000
> I got rid ... and for these 3 I really don't care to hit del ;)
> SE> But the anti-spam schemes will cause problems for legitimate users
> SE> who may not be able to continue using their software of choice.
> ?? you mix up things ...
> 1) some ISPs requireing authenticated SMTP
> 2) open relays
> 1) is usually not needed for normal ISPs, because they can limit the usage
> to 'their' IP range !!!
> 2) is a VERY bad thing ... most SPAM is sent through such computers ...
> SE> The evolution of internet standards and protocols in the direction of
> SE> less open and more restrictive does bother me
> you don't seem to understand ??
> the protocol is absolutely open ...
> it is documented in a RFC, and you can use it at no charge !! (this is per
> definition open !)
> And restrictive ... can be compared to an airport.
> If you go through the metal detector, and it beeps like hell, and the
> officer finds a UCI and a gun in your clothes, should they be less
> restrictive ??
> If you throw away the guns, and let them reexamine you, you are allowed to
> pass ...
> IMHO GREAT !
To me it's a sad commentary on the insecure nature of our modern
world. Before the advent of terroist airplane hijackings there was
no need for the metal detectors. Even today, in the small town where
I live, I don't even bother to lock my front door. The lock wouldn't
stop a determined thief and it would be an inconvenience for me to
have to lock and unlock the door, so I just leave it unlocked.
It's been unlocked for over five years now. No problems.
Sam Ewalt
Croswell, Michigan
USA
-- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
