> all huge mail providers with thousands/millions of customers, so there
> is no wonder there is spam included.
Google, Amazon and Microsoft have billions of cash. It is indeed a
wonder how they are not spending it on outgoing mail detection.
> mail services to a mono-culture of single huge providers, but you
cannot
> block them just for being huge providers.
Nobody was saying so. Best is to block just the ip addresses that your
receive spam from. Their network will reroute emails. But if their ip
addresses a randomly blocked by many other providers. All their queues
will start using more resources bouncing around mails, having to explain
to their clients why sometimes a mail is send and sometimes rejected,
costs increase, thus more incentive to kick out spammers or spend more
on prevention.
> If you block something, you have to ask yourself: How many innocent,
> unsuspecting legitimate senders
Who cares, these "unsuspecting legitimate senders" should take their
business somewhere else.
> I'm blocking as well as the spammers? If
> you block even one innocent sender as collateral damage, you should
not
> block that email provider, regardless how annoying it is.
What a non-sense. This is how spammers currently work, mix legitimate
mail with spam. Just block ip's, it is not your fault they are sending
you spam. Nobody can blame you, if you do not want to do the work that
Amazon, Google and Microsoft should be doing.
