Len Budney wrote:
>
> [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"
