Let's go ahead and close this thread out, thanks. -- Puryear Information Technology, LLC Baton Rouge, LA * 225-706-8414 http://www.puryear-it.com
Author, "Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers" http://www.puryear-it.com/pubs/linux-unix-best-practices Identity Management, LDAP, and Linux Integration Tim Fournet wrote: > The problem here is that SPAM is a huge problem for ISPs. You can try to > argue that it's the user's fault for getting spam in the first place, > but you're not going to get anywhere with that. SPAM eats up tons of > bandwidth, results in thousands of customer service calls, and causes > dissatisfaction all the way around. > > As mentioned here already, it's never going to go away as long as we > keep using SMTP for sending email. The protocol is inherently flawed, I > often liken it to snail mail. When you get an envelope in your mailbox, > there's no way to tell where it actually came from. There's a return > address on it, but there's no means of actually checking that return > address out to see if it's true. SMTP works the same way, it's easy to > spoof the sender of a message. SPAM is also still profitable because > apparently some people are still suckered in by some of the messages. It > costs nothing to send, and therefore a 0.00000001% return rate on a > billion emails out will give someone a profit. > > That's why ISPs have had to take it upon themselves to install their own > spam filters. Users WILL get suckered in by phishing attacks, or have > their mailboxes flooded by unwanted email. The ISP will install filters > it for its own reasons, chief among them is keeping the customer happy. > Until you see customers demanding that ISPs take their SPAM filters > offline, that's not going to change. > > Now, as far as your problem with sending an email with nothing in the > body but a numeric hyperlink, and that getting rejected... there's a > very good chance that your mail was detected as SPAM because they are > running a piece of Open Source Software called SPAMASSASSIN. One of the > aspects that will increase the score it uses to determine the likelihood > of SPAM is the existence of a URL with a numeric IP address. > > If you don't like that, there's nothing in the ISP's agreements that > require you to use their own mail servers. You are free to rent your own > server and run your own mail account that way. > > > willhill wrote: >> Scott, what you said is both insulting and wrong. I understand the issues >> but >> don't agree with you. It is a matter of principles and I'm not ashamed of >> that. >> >> Your dismissal of principles is more disturbing than your insult. >> Technology >> use should be guided by principles rather than the converse. The whole >> point >> of the exercise is to overcome limitations and improve the world for people. >> >> All of us must exercise moral judgment or we can be used as tools and do >> things we should be ashamed of. >> >> I think I've got both technical and moral issues right on this one. From a >> technical perspective, dumb networks are more efficient than "smart" ones. >> >From a moral perspective, censorship is wrong and censorship to support >> monopoly software shortcomings is doing something wrong for the sake of >> something bad. You can argue that this is the way things are but that only >> proves that things are not as they should be. There's no difference between >> the bits I'm uploading here in this email and the same bits sent by my own >> mail or web server. It's wrong for Cox to keep me from running either and >> that's one aim of their goofey email filter. The problem you have pointed >> out is not caused by people like me, it's caused by an OS that's so easy to >> abuse that it's responsible for the majority of the world's spam. As moral >> implementers of technology, we owe it to people to recommend software that >> works and eliminate software that creates problems. Doing otherwise only >> makes things harder. >> >> Networks, like software, are better when they don't have owners. >> Information >> is always better when you can get it from the source. Network owners have a >> tendency to get in the way and exploit their position. The most egregious >> example of that is state controlled, broadcast media. The more control we >> allow network owners to exert, the less good networks will do. >> >> On Tuesday 29 January 2008 11:22 pm, Scott Harney wrote: >> >>> You either a) don't understand what I am saying or b) don't want to >>> understand what I'm saying because it conflicts with your beliefs in some >>> way. Whatever. >>> >> >>> The various other readers of the list will make their own judgements and >>> discuss the technical aspects. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> General mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >> > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
