A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What are your thoughts on.....



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 17th 04, 03:36 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...
[...]
My domain is optonline.net, which is a major cable internet ISP. If you
block optonline.net then you stop email from millions of legitimate
addresses.


Why you replied by email, I don't know. However, as far as the blocked
domain goes, it's likely he has nothing to do with that.

Probably his ISP is using one of those obnoxious black-hole lists that
automatically detects spam and adds IP ranges from which the spam originated
to its database. Of course, since a third of all spam these days is being
sent from compromised but otherwise legitimate users, this sort of idiotic
solution results in innocent bystanders getting their email blocked.

My ISP provides this kind of "service", and once I found out what was going
on, I told them to disable it for my email. I don't get any more spam than
I used to, and I don't have friends and family complaining that they can't
send me email anymore.

Pete


  #2  
Old March 17th 04, 06:03 AM
Ben Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Peter Duniho wrote:

Probably his ISP is using one of those obnoxious black-hole lists that
automatically detects spam and adds IP ranges from which the spam originated
to its database.


The problem is that some people get so much spam that if they didn't
take drastic filtering measures they wouldn't get your email anyway --
they wouldn't have time to sift through the spam looking for it.

Of course, since a third of all spam these days is being
sent from compromised but otherwise legitimate users, this sort of idiotic
solution results in innocent bystanders getting their email blocked.


Not really. 'Compromised' broadband users infected with viruses that
turn them into spam zombies should still be sending their legitimate
email through their ISP's server, which will not be on the DUL-style
lists I assume you are refering to. There is plenty of collateral
damage from IP blocking, but the cause of those blocks is usually ISP
supported spam.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/
  #3  
Old March 17th 04, 07:11 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:RSR5c.27524$JL2.318706@attbi_s03...
The problem is that some people get so much spam that if they didn't
take drastic filtering measures they wouldn't get your email anyway --
they wouldn't have time to sift through the spam looking for it.


Did you read my post? I had my ISP *** DISABLE *** the black-hole list
functionality for my email account, and it produced NO CHANGE in the amount
of spam I receive.

Not only was it blocking legitimate email, it turned out it did not appear
to be blocking any spam that SpamAssassin (which my ISP also runs) wasn't
already catching.

Obviously it is possible to filter out spam without resorting to such
drastic measures.

Not really. 'Compromised' broadband users infected with viruses that
turn them into spam zombies should still be sending their legitimate
email through their ISP's server, which will not be on the DUL-style
lists I assume you are refering to.


You have no clue about what you're talking about. The reason that I had my
ISP disable the black-hole list was that domains such as aol.com,
comcast.com, and cox.net were being blocked. These are all "respectable"
ISPs who take a no-tolerance stance toward their users sending spam.

The same tool, by the way, was blocking another friend's email because he
was running his own email server behind a dynamic IP address. Yet another
inappropriately blocked, perfectly legitimate source of email.

Your claim that those sources of email "will not be on the DUL-style lists"
is just plain wrong.

There is plenty of collateral
damage from IP blocking, but the cause of those blocks is usually ISP
supported spam.


Baloney. I receive practically no email from anyone using an ISP that
supports spam. I doubt I know ANYONE who uses an ISP that supports spam.
And yet email sent to me was getting blocked on a regular basis, because
those spam-intolerant ISPs that my friends and family do use were still
getting blocked.

Do you really believe that Ben or his ISP at rrcnet.org have blocked the
optonline.net domain as a spamming network legitimately?

Pete


  #4  
Old March 17th 04, 07:58 AM
Ben Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Peter Duniho wrote:

You have no clue about what you're talking about. [...]


I don't know why you've decided to elevate this straight to "flamewar".
I agree that the fallout from spam (false positives especially) is
reaching unacceptable levels. Don't be so quick to condemn those who
have been burned by insufficient filtering who have resorted to stronger
measures. Just because you don't need them (on the scale of your own
personal inbox) doesn't mean they're useless.

There is plenty of collateral
damage from IP blocking, but the cause of those blocks is usually ISP
supported spam.


Baloney. I receive practically no email from anyone using an ISP that
supports spam.


How would you even know? And besides, I said "collateral damage". I'm
including the case where small ISPs have IP blocks that are near known
spammers and overzealous blackhole list admins hit them too.

Do you really believe that Ben or his ISP at rrcnet.org have blocked the
optonline.net domain as a spamming network legitimately?


That's a loaded question, you just spent the rest of your message ranting
about how the blocks are never legitimate. The server in question is
listed on 4 out of 31 blackhole lists at the moment. The policies of
at least a few of those require that actual spam come from the actual
server to one of their traps. I wouldn't use them at blacklists because
I find their policies too extreme. But then again I only process tens of
thousands of junk email messages a day, probably a few orders of magnitude
below a medium sized ISP.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/
  #5  
Old March 17th 04, 05:56 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:XyT5c.28636$J05.189678@attbi_s01...
I don't know why you've decided to elevate this straight to "flamewar".


Because I have a very low tolerance of fools who insist on contradicting
what I say, even when they don't have a clue.

[...] Just because you don't need them (on the scale of your own
personal inbox) doesn't mean they're useless.


I never said they were useless. I said they didn't provide a benefit worthy
of the cost.

How would you even know? And besides, I said "collateral damage". I'm
including the case where small ISPs have IP blocks that are near known
spammers and overzealous blackhole list admins hit them too.


Again, have you even bothered to read my post? ISPs being blocked are not
just small ISPs with "IP blocks that are near known spammers". In fact, the
ones I've had the most trouble with are AOL, Comcast, and Cox; typically,
when they get blocked, it's a *sub-block* within their total allocated range
that is blocked. They are NOT being blocked as a result of being adjacent
to some spam-friendly ISP.

Do you really believe that Ben or his ISP at rrcnet.org have blocked the
optonline.net domain as a spamming network legitimately?


That's a loaded question, you just spent the rest of your message ranting
about how the blocks are never legitimate.


It's not a loaded question. It has everything to do with the post to which
you made your original, idiotic reply.

Pete


  #6  
Old March 17th 04, 06:19 PM
Darrel Toepfer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Duniho wrote:

Again, have you even bothered to read my post? ISPs being blocked are not
just small ISPs with "IP blocks that are near known spammers". In fact, the
ones I've had the most trouble with are AOL, Comcast, and Cox; typically,
when they get blocked, it's a *sub-block* within their total allocated range
that is blocked. They are NOT being blocked as a result of being adjacent
to some spam-friendly ISP.


Blocking the dialup/cable/dsl modem pooled IP's of another ISP are the
necessary evils of being an ISP. You don't want to receive spam/virii
from their users computer acting as their own SMTP server...

Rooting out the true SMTP servers of each ISP (especially a stealth
spammer like E@rthlink or a proxy based one like A0L) is the tough part
of IP blocking. C0X and RR both use regional mail servers which make it
that much harder again. Anybody on Comc@st or @delphia, needs to get a
Hotmail or Yahoo email account...

Getting spam from adjacent blocks, just helps keep the filter file list
smaller, as they are added together...
  #7  
Old March 17th 04, 11:18 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Darrel Toepfer" wrote in message
. ..
Blocking the dialup/cable/dsl modem pooled IP's of another ISP are the
necessary evils of being an ISP.


No, they are not. Not when the ISPs being blocked are actively anti-spam.


  #8  
Old March 17th 04, 06:37 PM
Ben Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Peter Duniho wrote:
Because I have a very low tolerance of fools who insist on contradicting
what I say, even when they don't have a clue.


You know, after your last bit of frothing I looked at some of your
older usenet posts. You didn't used to be such a dick. What happened?

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/
  #9  
Old March 17th 04, 11:20 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:OV06c.31312$Cb.514996@attbi_s51...
Because I have a very low tolerance of fools who insist on contradicting
what I say, even when they don't have a clue.


You know, after your last bit of frothing I looked at some of your
older usenet posts. You didn't used to be such a dick. What happened?


You quoted the explanation. I've always been this way. It's just it takes
a particular kind of idiot to set me off. I don't mind people disagreeing
with me, but I do mind people flat out calling me a liar when they don't
have the facts on their side.

Pete


  #10  
Old March 17th 04, 02:21 PM
Darrel Toepfer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Duniho wrote:

You have no clue about what you're talking about. The reason that I had my
ISP disable the black-hole list was that domains such as aol.com,
comcast.com, and cox.net were being blocked. These are all "respectable"
ISPs who take a no-tolerance stance toward their users sending spam.


All three of those ARE spammers and are all very unresponsive in getting
their customers to clean up... Comcast is the worst of the bunch,
followed by Cox, and AOL is much better than it used to be... Every spam
or virus received from them, if forwarded back with a complaint and
the reason for it...

Baloney. I receive practically no email from anyone using an ISP that
supports spam. I doubt I know ANYONE who uses an ISP that supports spam.
And yet email sent to me was getting blocked on a regular basis, because
those spam-intolerant ISPs that my friends and family do use were still
getting blocked.


I guess you don't get any of those "419" money scams then...

Do you really believe that Ben or his ISP at rrcnet.org have blocked the
optonline.net domain as a spamming network legitimately?


I kneaux I have...
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thoughts on handheld Aviation radios (ICOM vs Vertex-Standard) Barnyard BOb - Home Built 5 September 8th 04 07:27 PM
further thoughts about women suicide bombers Cub Driver Military Aviation 24 January 18th 04 07:52 AM
Telex PC-4 Intercom thoughts? [email protected] Owning 0 July 24th 03 01:02 PM
Wanted clever PA32 engineer's thoughts - Gear extention problem on Piper Lance [email protected] Owning 5 July 22nd 03 12:35 AM
Thoughts at a funeral for a stranger matheson Military Aviation 2 July 4th 03 05:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.