[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Len Budney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Modems neither cause nor result from spam--modems and spam merely
> > correlate.
>
> It's an unusual step for a dial-up user to make direct SMTP
> connections from his system. Examining why they occur, there seem
> to be 3 cases:
Thanks for a nice, cogent analysis. You did miss one sub-case, though,
which may generally be a minor issue.
> 2. Spamming -- they're doing something they don't want to be
> visible to their ISP.
The subcase is:
2. (b) Privacy/paranoia -- they're doing something _legitimate_ that
they don't want visible to their provider.
Before I got a static IP at work, I needed to use my employer's server
to send mail. My employer had a stated policy reserving the right to
intercept and read mail sent through the company server. They had no
policy forbidding the use of SMTP without their server, and they had
no policy against personal email on company time.
Hence, to protect my privacy, I chose to send personal mail from my
own Linux laptop, circumventing their server.
Yes, I know--that's security through obscurity. I also used PGP, when
applicable. However, it was a matter of principle with me to at least
circumvent their stated intention to violate my privacy at will.
Hence, this is also a subtype of:
> 3. Playing -- situations like home Linux boxes where people want to
> make the connections direct because they can.
[snip]
> So it doesn't seem that unreasonable to me to block SMTP from dialup
> pools. The legitemate users appear to have perfectly reasonable
> options, and it stops one way of injecting spam.
It is your right, if you are an ISP. It will make many of us Linux
users sad, because you have forbidden our "playing". It's rather a
pity, in my opinion.
Len.
--
20. The Gestures of the Body must be Suited to the discourse you are upon.
-- George Washington, "Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour"
