> Hell if they are that poor an admin to be infected by worms > that usually exploit OLD vunerabilities then HELL YES they > deserve to be ignored on the Internet!
Those are home users, you know the kind that "just surf's the web" kind of people. Wasn't there a wrom going around the other day that was installing MTA's as a payload in order to send spam? > > Try having your mailserver bombarded by thousands of machines > around the world from such poor people as you describe and > you won't have any sympathy for them. > I don't. I do have a mailserver like this (actually several) I just need to look at my firewall logs everyday to see what my neighbours alone are up. I still get attempts to crack my box by using the Code Red or Nimbda exploit. > I routinely firewall consistent spammers so they cannot even > get through to my mailserver. I only block port 25 though so > it is only email I ignore from them. This is perfectly > legitimate defence against mail "attacks" in my books. > Do you take out entire Class B's? I don't think so. > So your ISP changes the reverse DNS of your IP address every > time you shift to a new IP address? Yes. Which happened so far only once outside a move when they reconfigured their network. > > And the rest of us should suffer because of this? I think not! > You're missing my point. Should *I* suffer because of this? I don't care what AOL is doing, the amount of people I know on AOL is 1 and I already told him no email from me, so he'll be moving soon (as far as I understood). But what if others start doing the same thing? > But it is NOT JUST OPEN RELAYS that spew out this garbage! > You seem obsessed that the only place spam comes from is open > relays! A lot of spam comes from machines that are > dynamically assigned addresses that are NOT open relays. You > cannot block them cause they shift around. If they are on > static IP addresses they are easy to firewall and/or code > reject rules in your mailserver to ignore that particular > problem IP address. You have to find a balance, that's all I say. The idea to block every cable modem, DSL line and uplink is not very "nice". Maybe I am too long on the net but I remember a time when there was at least a bit of respect left. I have a problem with a blanket approach because it won't stop the problem, it won't stop massive amounts of spam because people are just going to find other ways to get the shit to you. > > In both cases you have the same effect without closing the door on > > everybody. > > Nope, not the same thing. I said effect, not thing ;) > OK that's bugger then. So look for: > 1) A web hosting company who can host your domain and email > on a static IP address for you! > 2) Find a few friends and share a co-location box? I am working with Option 2 right now, so I can send email through there, in fact I reconfigured my Sendmail to do just that, but it's a pain in the butt because I have to enable remail for every domain / address I add on my side. > > > > It is normally the home users that get steamed up about > not allowing > > > dynamic IP addresses to send email because their occaisonal email > > > gets rejected. > > > > 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. > > Again with the open relay obsessiveness! You are not being > accused of being an open relay. You are being accused of > running a mailserver on a "residential" class IP address. > They are not the same thing my friend. I have to see what exactly the message stated, but again we come back to the "fairness" of the net, what AOL is doing is not being a good citizen on the net, IP classes shift around, what is Dynamic right now might not be in a week etc. etc. I still don't agree with AOLs approach I think it's overkill and unfair to the community at large. M. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
