I don't know which specific email you're replying to since it's not below (might be Jeff's, might be mine). Since you said "Think of all the good sites you may be missing", must be another post since mine discussed IP's in email headers which has nothing to do with site blocking.
If you're talking about blocking IP ranges in email headers, you're right, I agree. But unfortunately, all it takes IS a "few cause issues" to have a business destroyed by UCE. And, when you're on your way to another heart attack thanks to UCE, it's a no-brainer as to which is more important; blocking all known bad IP sources and staying healthier, or, having to put up with it just to receive an email or two that MIGHT be legit yet die from health issues. In my case, email wise nothing good ever came out of LACNIC or APNIC (except Australia/New Zealand like I said yesterday) and in most cases, RIPE as well. Also in my cases, all email from those areas was either UCE, malware attacks ON PURPOSE, or criminal scams. Furthermore, if one does not do business with countries in those areas (again, except for AU and NZ), blocking those IP ranges is the most efficient sensible thing to do. Yes, we are all fully aware that there ARE some good, decent people/places in those areas, but like I mentioned, unfortunately the greater need must win out and again, if one doesn't do business in those areas, it's a moot point and nothing's lost. That's for sure about the IP owners needing to be more concerned as to what's going on. Unfortunately, they are not only FULLY aware of atrocities, but SUPPORT them. They are part of them. So, in the case of many persons, just blocking ALL of them makes the most sense. It of course is up to the victimized individuals as to what works best for them. They have to weigh the two and chose their own "lesser of two evils" as to what suits them best. Again, in my particular case, due to my circumstances, in the end it was an easy choice, but one I did not take lightly. It HAD to be done. As for when one must contact a manufacturer of something for example in these IP ranges, an unfiltered address is used. (BTW, FWIW I've gotten countless thousands of UCE attacks from free host sites. Geocities is one that comes to mind [which of course the UCE sites are 99% p*rn sites]). :-( -Clint God Bless Clint Hamilton, Owner http://OrpheusComputing.com ) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Kaulback" One large hole in this system is that blocking IP ranges will do more harm than good. Think of all the good sites you may be missing in those ranges that you will never know. I have never comprehended this logic whereby just because a small number cause issues that all must be censored. Which is why I do not put my trust in crude systems like these but rather in more detailed filters. It would be nice also if the IP holders in these area's were concerned more with security and concerns of their customers true identities (many operations in North America have used these hosts for attacks) than the almighty dollar but one must make a living too (I still have not seen a spammer site on a free host :>). As for the Googlebar I've not had any security issues with it, MSN is something else. If anyone using Mozilla or Netscape 7.x is interested there is a Googlebar for these browsers too, it is wholly unrelated to Google but it is a good search tool too http://googlebar.mozdev.org/ Peter Kaulback ============= PCWorks Mailing List ================= Don't see your post? Check our posting guidelines & make sure you've followed proper posting procedures, http://pcworkers.com/rules.htm Contact list owner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Unsubscribing and other changes: http://pcworkers.com =====================================================
