What are your thoughts on.....

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/

"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

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...

"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.

Peter Duniho wrote:
Darrel Toepfer wrote...

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.

There is no valid reason to allow dialup accounts to send SMTP direct.
Route the mail through the provider's server, works for millions of
other people...

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:21:02 -0600, Darrel Toepfer
wrote:

Peter Duniho wrote:
Darrel Toepfer wrote...

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.

There is no valid reason to allow dialup accounts to send SMTP direct.
Route the mail through the provider's server, works for millions of
other people...

I find it surprising that a dial-up would even bother trying to be
their own server except for strictly educational means. For that
matter, why would a cable user bother to do so when they can use the
provider and it's so much simpler.

I can think of no reason not to block mail from dynamic IP hosts.

Yet, I do know of one person who insists on using his own server and
mail server on cable. Never have figured out why.

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

In article , Roger Halstead
wrote:

I find it surprising that a dial-up would even bother trying to be
their own server except for strictly educational means. For that
matter, why would a cable user bother to do so when they can use the
provider and it's so much simpler.

some reasons:

because the provider has proven to be unreliable.

because it is really to change email addresses.

because I'm a geek.


I can think of no reason not to block mail from dynamic IP hosts.

that doesn't mean there are any valid reasons to block all
email from dynamic IP hosts.


Yet, I do know of one person who insists on using his own server and
mail server on cable. Never have figured out why.

see above.

--
Bob Noel

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/

"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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
but I do mind people flat out calling me a liar when they don't
have the facts on their side.

I don't think anyone called you a liar. Idiot, perhaps, for attempting to
debate a topic that you, quite obviously, have no background in. But liar?
Naw.

--
Jim Fisher