> > So we have tons of people out there who have their windows machines > > wide open and are getting infected by worms, maybe we should just > > completely > shut > > those people off the net? > > Sounds ok to me.
Same for me. Maybe we should petition my ISP then? > > > My ISP has names associated with all the IP addresses, > those names are > > in return my customer ID. So far my IP has changed only > when I moved, > otherwise > > it remained the same and even if I would move and get a new IP > > according > to > > my DNS Rcord by my ISP you could identify me (and anybody > else on the > > network). > > Alot of ISPs used to run software that automatically updated > your PTR record based on your userid for example if you > logged into ip 10.0.1.7, the PTR for 10.0.1.7 would be > userid.isp.net that way it was easy to identify who it was, > until people started using that as a method of privacy > invasion, off the top of my head i could think of 30 reasons > why THIS is a bad idea. > Why? The Customer ID is not really telling anything, what's "worse" is that they put geographic regions in the name of my host... Actually they don't anymore, they did in the past, looks like someone smartened up. > > I think most people who know this don't even set them up on > purpose. > > If > you > > install certain Windows development packages you get IIS, > and with IIS > > you get a mailserver and that thing was (in the past) by > default open. > > This doesn't make it OK. I didn't say it is okay, I just say that there is a huge misconception on WHO is actually doing what. > > You could do the same thing: Email comes in on a dynamic > address, see > > if > it > > is an open relay. Even easier: Only do it if you get a > certain amount > > of addresses it is delivering to or x amount of connections in y > > period of time. > > You'd invariably get false positives, but you always do so i > guess that isnt a valid arguement. You will always have them but why not limit the chances instead of making sure that 100% of "legal" email doesn't make it through? > > > In both cases you have the same effect without closing the door on > > everybody. > > It just boils down to odds, odds are probably 7/10 of MTAs > running on DHCP assigned addresses are either misconfigured, > or used for spam. > The question would be: Why put people on DHCP anyways? For an "always on" connection it doesn't really make sense, unless they have an issue with you running servers on it. But even then as it is in my case, that doesn't prevent me from running a server, I just point a CNAME to my hostname and as the IP doesn't change anyways I could even resolve it right onto the IP. > > Which (ironically enough) doesn't allow me to relay with my > OWN domain > name. > > I can only relay with my ISP's domain name which sort of makes that > > thing useless to me. > > Your ISPs server probably only accepts outbound mail for > their own domain, this is a tactic to prevent from spoofing > the from: field. > I know WHY they are doing it. I just say that the idea of "Use your ISP's MTA" is not working for me. > > I just find it very irritating that I am accused of having an open > > relay when I don't. And those "blanket approach" to spam fighting > > doesn't seem > to > > work, looking at my mailbox every day. > > Well, would you rather we just let it fly? Eventually the > current iteration of the 'net is going to be a waste of time > unless something is done. > See above, I don't say don't do anything but I have a problem with a "We assume you're guilty even though we can't proof it, and no we're not interrested in you telling us you are innocent." approach that AOL is taking. M. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
