So theoretically scanning email attatchments for viruses is illeagal too?
and the same goes for filtering out porn?
-chris
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
Seems to me that this is an invitation to government
regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal
offense for good reason.
Dhu
On 28 Dec 2002 15:46:10 -0500
Shawn Duffy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The lists are usually kept on the websites of whatever particular
organizations are doing it... they are quite a few...
As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want
someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly
within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with you,
well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will
probably sue over it and win...
shawn
On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
How do you find if you are on the list? And who has the list?
Can they be sued?
Thanks,
Duncan (Dhu) Campbell
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500
Harry Tabak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam
filter, I've had to send this from another account]
I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross
posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues --
the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD
ported package is contributing to an internet service availability
problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of
other internet denizens are also affected.
I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and
I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I
write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of
strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software
that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to
my face, but to business associate. And then took action.
I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported
package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me
to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll
probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a
freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't
be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest
that you check it out.]
Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But,
IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules
that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad
anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's
bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD,
and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is
fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product.
Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully
described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the
inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this
product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I
am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions,
but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people.
The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even
though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its
rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is
buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by
default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it
blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there.
This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ
postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus.
My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam
site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them.
My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's x/23 block.
The DSL provider's block is a sub-allocation from Inflow.com's
66.45.0.0/17 block. Spambouncer doesn't like Inflow. While they have a
right to their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me
because of my neighbors.
If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy to not
only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on
their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business
receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring
