What are your thoughts on.....

"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

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 03:19:24 GMT, Bob Noel
wrote:

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.

If the provider has proven unreliable it is highly unlikely their dial
up service used as a server is going to be more so.


because it is really to change email addresses.

I can change e-mail addresses on my ISPs server in a matter of
seconds. I log in, go to the proper URL, create and or delete
addresses. It doesn't take much longer than that.


because I'm a geek.

That's legit.



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.

The reason for blocking dynamic IPs is they keep changing. Some one
spamming, logs out, and back in. Instant new address. When you have
hundreds of thousands of users, let alone just a few thousand it takes
a whole staff to keep users in line. Sure they can be traced using
the logs (if the ISP keeps good longs), but a dynamic IP would make
them easily traceable.

Let one of those dynamic IPs get infected with a trojan and become a
slave server and it's instant mayhem.



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.

Nah, it's gotta be more than that. His server is less reliable, he
moved to cable and although he claims it's static, the IP changes
every time he reboots. He has to feed all his machines through one on
a different NIC so he can get away with using a server on the cable.

Yes, the cable is cheaper and faster than DSL. OTOH, I use web
hosting, I pay about $40 a month more than he does, I don't have to
service the equipment, I don't have to keep backups, I don't have to
do the many things the ISP does to deal with the whole wide world, and
my server is legal. Still I have firewalls, virus checkers, spam
bots, and the like.

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

Bob Noel wrote:
Roger Halstead:

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.

Virii and spam come to mind... Pick any one, much less both...

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