What are your thoughts on.....

In article ,
Bob Noel wrote:
In article , Dylan Smith
wrote:

because I'm a geek.

That's legit.

It's also legit for private networks to not accept mail from dynamic IP
ranges.

nope. That approach is just "shoot em all, sort em later." The
"effectiveness" of it doesn't make it legit.

iow - since so much email is spam/uce, just delete them all.

That's disingenious and you know it. My spam filter can be thought as
the INS of my computer: just like people from countries where the most
illegal immigration come from don't get to be in the visa waiver
program, email from where most the spam comes from has to go through the
proper channels. The vast majority of the spam comes from dynamic IP
address ranges that are listed in the SBL's Exploit Blacklist. If you
happen to live in those places, and you want your email to be accepted
by my private network, you must go through the proper channels - your
ISP's smart host. Or stop being a skinflint and get a proper business
DSL connection that supports servers (or host your mailserver elsewhere,
a suitable VPS starts at a very good price).

Or are you suggesting it's feasable and worthwhile for 12 users to sort
through over 2500 pieces of spam to find on average 10 legitimate emails
a day each? Why should we spend hours filter by hand just to allow a
handful of geeks to run servers on a consumer dialup connection?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:08:02 -0000, Dylan Smith wrote:

email from where most the spam comes from has to go through the
proper channels.

Most of the spam originates in the US.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

In article , Dylan Smith
wrote:

Or stop being a skinflint and get a proper business
DSL connection that supports servers

Your assumption regarding whether or not I'm being cheap is incorrect.

Your assumption that only business accounts can properly run servers is
incorrect.

--
Bob Noel

In article , Bob
Noel wrote:
In article , Dylan Smith
wrote:

Or stop being a skinflint and get a proper business
DSL connection that supports servers

Your assumption regarding whether or not I'm being cheap is incorrect.

Your assumption that only business accounts can properly run servers is
incorrect.

But my assumption that 99.9% of mail directly from a dynamic IP address
is spam/malware is entirely correct. I'm not going through all that crap
just because one geek refuses to get a static IP address for their
mail server. Just like if you come from North Korea, you need a visa to
visit the US, if you want your mail to be delivered to my users, you
must use an IP address which is not strongly identified with machines
running malware.

If you're not being cheap, what exactly are your reasons to send mail
directly from your dynamic IP address instead of ponying up for a VPS or
a static IP address?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:44:06 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

In article , Bob
Noel wrote:
In article , Dylan Smith
wrote:

Or stop being a skinflint and get a proper business
DSL connection that supports servers

Your assumption regarding whether or not I'm being cheap is incorrect.

Your assumption that only business accounts can properly run servers is
incorrect.

But my assumption that 99.9% of mail directly from a dynamic IP address
is spam/malware is entirely correct. I'm not going through all that crap

I'm not sure if it is quite that high, but the figure is staggering.
Given a cable network with thousands of users, it only takes a few
infected machines, and or a few actual spammers to really tie things
up.

I've said it before, but not just the average user, but most are
absolutely clueless. They do not know how to, or care to bother
practice safe computing. They enable HTML e-mail instead of setting
it to plain text. They have their address books set to automatically
take any new addresses to which they send e-mail. They open
attachments as they know "their" friends would never send them a
virus. They have their systems set to automatically run macros. and
on and on and on... They do not use fire walls or virus checkers and
then when something happens they blame the operating system. Never
mind that had all the defaults been turned off they would have turned
them back on.

The spammers have discovered that the best way to get addresses now is
to infect the machine so it sends out the contents of their address
book. This has given them a whole new set of addresses that are never
put up on the net.

just because one geek refuses to get a static IP address for their
mail server. Just like if you come from North Korea, you need a visa to
visit the US, if you want your mail to be delivered to my users, you
must use an IP address which is not strongly identified with machines
running malware.

And the static IP for the mail server is easy to get. All you do is
use your ISPs mail service rather than creating your own server on a
dial up. Or sign up for one of the free ones.


If you're not being cheap, what exactly are your reasons to send mail
directly from your dynamic IP address instead of ponying up for a VPS or
a static IP address?

It doesn't cost me a cent extra to use my IPSs mail server (static
IP), or in this case, my own (which is static) although the host is
located at the ISPs rather than here. It's much faster.

The point is there is no real reason for the end user to use dynamic
e-mail addressing.

I will make a prediction. It won't be long and ALL e-mail will have
to have a valid return address. There will be no more legal anonymous
addressing, or posting.

Even with the "do not call" list, I still receive more telemarketing
calls than spam. (political campaigns, special interest groups,
charities, religious organizations... they are by definition exempt
from that law)

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

In article , Roger Halstead wrote:
I will make a prediction. It won't be long and ALL e-mail will have
to have a valid return address. There will be no more legal anonymous
addressing, or posting.

I don't think it'll be long either until you need a license to operate
an MTA (just like you need a radio license to operate an amateur radio
rig). With the amount of mail abuse that's happening, something's got to
give. If people were responsible for the abuse eminating from their MTA,
(i.e. could lose their license to operate the MTA - in the case of an
ISP, the whole ISP would find themselves with a suspended license and
unable to send email) they'd be a damned sight more careful about making
sure that the abuse could be minimized.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article , Roger Halstead
wrote:

I will make a prediction. It won't be long and ALL e-mail will have
to have a valid return address. There will be no more legal anonymous
addressing, or posting.

don't confuse email with usenet.

--
Bob Noel

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:50:57 GMT, Bob Noel
wrote:

In article , Roger Halstead
wrote:

I will make a prediction. It won't be long and ALL e-mail will have
to have a valid return address. There will be no more legal anonymous
addressing, or posting.

don't confuse email with usenet.

I'm referring to both.

Given the direction regulations and lack of knowledge have been
following, I'd almost bet that within a few years it will be illegal
to send e-mail,*OR* post on news groups without a valid return
address. At least they are going to try.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

In article , Roger Halstead
wrote:

I will make a prediction. It won't be long and ALL e-mail will have
to have a valid return address. There will be no more legal anonymous
addressing, or posting.

don't confuse email with usenet.

I'm referring to both.

Given the direction regulations and lack of knowledge have been
following, I'd almost bet that within a few years it will be illegal
to send e-mail,*OR* post on news groups without a valid return
address. At least they are going to try.

But a valid return address wrt usenet is what? the poster's email
address? But email isn't usenet, and having an email address should
never be a requirement for using usenet (after all, they are two
entirely different systems).

I'm hoping that you're thinking that there will be no anomyous
posting on usenet (which is different than requiring posters to
use a valid email address).

--
Bob Noel