On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
selling access to spammers, how long do you think Barracuda would stay in
business. Their customers who got the spam would move elsewhere. So I
really don't think that Barracuda is going to sell out their main business
to make $20 off of a few spammers.
Marc, I am admiring a nice pattern I see here. My mental Bayes algorithm
has ticked over. Is rich...@bizzhost.co.uk a spammer trying to derail the
effective tools? He's certainly acting like it.
Remove the paranoia and low flying black helicopters from his posts, he
has some merit in one comment, the emailreg.org _should_ be able to be
disabled by customers, but, then again, you can always vote with your feet
and simply not use their systems, they will quickly get the picture, but
sadly a lot of people just have no clue, there are afterall, plenty of
saleman out there who could sell ice to an Eskimo.
I really am amazed that anyone would trust any third party whitelist of
any kind in the anti-spam world. FWIW, there is only one whitelist that
deserves to be active, and that's the one that we, as individuals, apply
locally for our own networks for our own situations, I will never allow
someone unrelated to my business to decide whats "not a spam host".
Even the most looked after networks, can have an authorised user who
becomes worm infected, and spams the hell out of everyone.
--
Res
"What does Windows have that Linux doesn't?" - One hell of a lot of bugs!
