James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> > And all the crime I've experienced was perpetrated by "those people."
> > That's why I ready my pepper spray whenever one of "them" comes near
> > me.
>
> Oh, come on...this sounds like the same BS logic that was used to argue
> that SMTP servers should remain open relays...
I was not involved in that debate. Nor do I carry pepper spray. Nor is
the above point BS.
If deliveries to a certain neighborhood are statistically more likely
to be waylaid and robbed, then refusing to deliver to that
neighborhood WILL diminish the number of robberies. Sadly, such a rule
is actionable, as a US pizza vendor recently learned.
> > True, but even factually-based prejudice, when based on _correlation_
> > rather than _causation_, is mighty risky business.
>
> Allowing UUNet dialup IPs direct access to my mail server has _caused_
> alot more spam than I now get.
Lots of filtering rules rely on _legitimate_ grounds for discarding
email: RFC non-compliance, illegitimate or invalid DNS information,
etc.. Discarding mail from dialups involves _violating_ the RFC
(assuming the modems have proper A records) based on the _true_
observation that origination from a modem _correlates_ with spam.
You can get away with exercising this prejudice, for now, because
social stigma applies only to specific forms of prejudice.
The irony is that your prejudice, were it widespread, would hurt a few
Linux geeks like me--but would not affect spammers at all. If enough
servers began rejecting mail from dialups, then spammers will start
using smarthosts, or finding ISPs whose modems are named "wombat" and
"cheetah", or adopting some other countermeasure.
Like all pattern-matching or profiling solutions, it is temporary, and
relies for its effectiveness on its novelty and your domain's numeric
insignificance.
Len.
--
He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth
his spirit than he that taketh a city. --Proverbs 16:32
