In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, it's speculation, and no even very substantial speculation.
>
>Ron, what part of "One's currently belting on my main mailserver, to the
>tune of 20,000 connects in the last 24 hours." is speculation?
That statement taken, alone, is NOT definitive proof that the sending
SMTP agent fails to understand 5xx error responses.
Ever heard of a mailbomb?
OK, forget that. Ever hear of a 100,000 message spam run in which 20,000
or so end up going to AOL, or to Netcom, or to some other popular domain?
20,000 connections in a day doesn't prove anything about the protocol
conformance level of the sending agent. You know it, I know it, and
everybody here with a brain knows it.
>The salient point of that statement, which you edited out, was that I
>suspected that the server didn't accept 5xx at all.
And like I said, I suspect that you were the second gunman on the grassy
knoll. So what? Suspicion != evidence.
>It is not an open
>question whether the server is performing correctly or not, as a correctly
>performing server wouldn't continue to connect 20,000 times a day.
It might indeed do exactly that. See above.
>> I believe that the Loch Ness monster exists... and I have video tapes
>> of it! Want you buy some? Only $39.95 a tape! Hey! Such a deal.
>> Send me your credit card number.
>
>Bzzzt. Wrong. Actual quote:
>
> "I've had to deal with the aftermath of several mailing list
> packages which wouldn't take 5xx for an answer"
Right, and then when pressed for the *names* of these alleged packages,
he could not name any.
And neither can you.
Hey! This is the list-managers mailing list right? OK. Swell! HEY!
Listen up y'all! You are all mailing list admins, yes? So have any of
you ever used a mailing list packages that ignores 5xx SMTP error codes?
(If *anybody* would know about such a thing, it would be the people here.
Let's see if even a single one raises his/her hand.)
>Do whatever the heck you want on your OWN systems, but I think it is
>irresponsible of you to provide the patches to sendmail to implement this
>functionality without mentioning that it might have unwanted (at best)
>side effects.
And I think it is irresponsible or _you_ to try to terrorize people into
not wanting to help us with the important work of closing down open relays
on the Internet, especially when you are doing it via totally unsubstantiated
rumors and heresay. You seem to be DELIBERATELY creating Fear, Uncertainty,
and Doubt (FUD) rather than proven facts. Why? Are you opposed to having
the net become a more secure and a less spam-friendly place?
>> Hell! The Sun might suddenly go nova! I guess I'd better rush down to
>> the local Thrify's and pick up some of that SPF 5,000 sun block!
>> :-)
>
>Ron, you have gotten so rabid on the subject of spam that even people who
>agree with you in spirit (like me) are turned off by your ranting.
I'm rabid about the truth. Sorry you don't like it. I was trained in
the hard sciences and I believe that people ought to make decisions based
upon established facts rather than upon gossip and speculation. As somebody
(Carl Sagan?) once said ``Religion requires faith without proof, and science
requires proof without faith.''
>* You aren't always right.
Fine. So prove me wrong. Post the product name and version number of
the SMTP agent that has been (or that can be) _proven_ to ignore 5xx
responses.
I'm waiting.
>* Just because someone points out a potential flaw in your reasoning
> doesn't make them the devil.
You aren't the devil. You are just like all of the people who believe in
astrology and who buy the National Enquirer at the checkout stand so that
they can read their horoscope for the day. You make decisions based upon
flimsey things that people say, in lieu of hard evidence.
>I'm done with this topic as, frankly, I'm starting to think you're
>trolling. It's verging off topic for list-managers anyway.
I ain't trolling.
We still got about a bazillion open relays on the net and we need everybody's
help to alert the owners of those systems to the dangers that they themselves
are facing by running these things.
Some people can (and do) help by just rejecting all incoming mail from the
open relay servers that IMRSS has cataloged. Others are now helping by
using the ``spoofed late failure hack'' I described. And then there's
other folks who just want to scare people into doing nothing, and letting
the problem fester.
-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
-- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
-- FREE Web Harvester Protection - http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ - Try it!
-- FREE DynamicIP Spam Filtering - http://www.imrss.org/dssl/ - TELL YOUR ISP!
