On 06/18/03 07:35 +1000, Peter Kiem wrote: > > You and Drew are the ones playing semenatic games by trying to equate > > the use of SMTP to be equal to a server. > > OK, but will you admit that in 99% cases SMTP is sent from a server? In the > vast majority of cases it is the ISP's mailserver that is used. Only the > people that insist on setting up their own mailservers on dynamic addresses > get affected and quite often these people don't know fully what they are > doing and cause a problem for everyone else on the Net.
Well, yes and no, IMHO. When I first set up my Red Hat box at home and started using Mutt ... around 4 or so years ago ... Sendmail was part of the default installation from Red Hat (probably 6.0). Taking the default install for Mutt to me meant using Fetchmail to POP from my cable provider and Sendmail to send outgoing. It never occurred to me to think that I was doing other than sending via my ISP for outgoing, nor was there anything in any documentation I read (and I DO read it) to tell me I was, in effect, setting up a server. Also, when I first began using Optimum Online, I was assigned a static address. Am I a mail/Sendmail guru? No. Am I an imprudent newbie? No. I'm a developer with a good number of years in the Linux world. My take on this is that this is evolutionary. A few years ago, when spam was a minor issue, it didn't matter. Now it does...like so many things that have changed in response to new security issues. John > > > I understand the practical aspects for an ISP using this > > "killing a rabbit with tactical nuke" approach" but from an engineering > > point of view its sheer laziness and innapropriate. > > To some point I do agree. > > To quote Wietse from Postfix fame: > "Junk mail is war. RFCs do not apply" > > To me junk mail is war! If by blocking dynamic addresses I can get rid of a > large percentage of junk mail to provide better service to my clients but in > the process I lose the 1% of mail coming from dynamic addresses that happens > to be legitimate then I think that is a fair and cost effective tradeoff. > > There ARE alternatives to running mailservers from dynamic addresses but > some people are just too damn stubborn :) > > > I have noticed in the many versions of this discussion I have seen and > > participated in that the people who think it "OK" almost always work > > for an ISP, or were people who didn't know how to protect their own > > systems from spammers. > > > > The majority of end-users who use SMTP are almost always thinking the > > opposite. > > Exactly! > > Regards, > +-----------------------------+---------------------------------+ > | Peter Kiem .^. | E-Mail : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > | Zordah IT /V\ | Mobile : +61 0414 724 766 | > | IT Consultancy & /( )\ | WWW : www.zordah.net | > | Internet Hosting ^^-^^ | ICQ : "Zordah" 866661 | > +-----------------------------+---------------------------------+ > My current spamtrap address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
