On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 08:44, Derek Martin wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:37:49AM -0600, Thomas Charron wrote: > > > as I understand your logic above you are saying that its OK to punish anyone > > > who is in close proximity to lawbreakers as long as your doing it to punish > > > lawbreakers? > > > > Since when is forcing an SMTP server to accept your mail a punishment? > > Tom, you're on the wrong train. You have it backward. It's the > broadband users who want to run their own services that are being > punished.
No, they aren't. They are being forced to live up to an agreement that they willingly entered into by an entity trying to help it's subscriber base. > > > For lawbreakers you can say spammers if that makes you more > > > comfortable. > > > > It's not the spammers here. It's the open relays that spammers USE. It's the > > people who relay. > > It's both. Many spammers are people with broadband connections, > looking to use it to make a few extra bucks. > > > hmmmm - No - this definitely doesn't pass my sniff test. By your logic > > > its ok to fine or put in jail anyone who lives next to drug dealers or > > > > Again, you're not being put in jail. > > So what? I'm still being restricted without having done anything to > deserve it... It's still a punishment. No, it isn't a punishment. And you were restricted the second that you signed the agreement. AOL has a right to restrict what comes in. A legitimate e-mail from a Comcast mail server can get in. People doing what isn't allowed, and sending mail from places that it shouldn't come from in the first place can't. Where is this a restriction on you? If you follow the rules, then you should be fine. I bet you have sendmail set up to check for bogus headers, right? Why? You're restricting my right to forge e-mail headers. > > They're saying, "I don't want you calling me". Tell me.. Anyone > > here have a caller ID block on unknown numbers? > > Woah. Wrong. They're saying, "I don't want you calling anyone I > provide service to." Since when is it OK for the phone company to > block calls from telemarketers? You've missed the boat here too. > Caller ID blocking is fine, as it represents the individual making a > choice whether or not to receive those calls. It is NOT ok for the > service provider to make those decisions on behalf of all its > customers. Woah. Wrong. They are saying "You can only call from a real phone. Anyone using an illegally cloned cell phone can't. And yes, it is their right, as they are acting not only on behalf of their subscriber base, but on behalf of themselves. How much do think it costs an ISP with 7 million subscribers to process all of the spam daily? > > Oh my GOD man. They rejected your SMTP email. Shesh. Since the > > protocol has no built in method of authentication, this is the best > > they can do. You can either eat spam, or do something like this. > > Or you can go after the spammers. Which is the only right way to go > about the problem. Make spamming not worth the potential gains. Fine > the bastards for every spam sent. Uh-huh.... And when the spammer forges your name onto the headers, I'm sure you'll pay the fine, too..... > > > The reason AOL is blocking > > > those IP's is its easier than actually blocking the spammers. > > > But its wrong. Its breaks the internet, a little bit and begins > > > the whole kit and kaboodle sliding toward the day when all email > > > and web services MUST go through an AOL/ISP approved node. > > > > They are blacklisting addresses of known open relays. > > Wrong wrong wrong. They are blacklisting entire IP blocks, where some > (relatively) few bad eggs live. >From the sounds of it, there are a whole lot more bad eggs then you think, seeing as you are one of them. No, you're not a spammer, but you admit to violating the rules and running a server. So, everyone should be allowed to run an SMTP server, right? Well, who's to say that all of Comcast's subscribers will know how to lock down an SMTP server? I bet they don't. Gee, I wonder why there are so many open relays on Comcasts network. Must be the sense of entitlement. > > > That must never happen but all the large ISP's would like it to. > > > Does anyone think that AOl would never try to act like some of the other > > > large monopolistic companies? > > > > Could very well be. But this is one move that, while being annoying as all > > hell, is a viable attempt to securing something. > > It's still wrong. No, it really isn't. The only people that have a problem with this are the people who are doing what they aren't supposed to be doing in the first place. The only people breaking any actual rules here are the people running the SMTP servers on Comcast's network. > > You know.. The same reason why some here always include their PGP signature > > to validate identiy? > > No, very different. The latter is to provide information for those > who may want it. The former is to block communications from an entire > class of people just because it *might* be unwanted. Whoah..... You're a "Class of people" now? Let m get this straight. Is the class of people Comcast subscribers, Comcast subscribers that run SMTP servers, people who run SMTP servers, or what??? C-Ya, Kenny _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
