[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers



On Thursday 25 October 2001 01:08, you wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, D. C. Sessions wrote:
> > On Wednesday 24 October 2001 14:15, Jeme A Brelin <jeme@brelin.net> wrote:
> > > But that ISP should be required to offer unfiltered mail as well and that
> > > should be the default configuration, lest the ignorant get screwed.
> > 
> > *Required?*
> 
> Yes, required.

On what basis?  Here we are on a list complaining about a law
that way overreaches, and you're proposing a law reaching deep
into the consensual relationships between a service provider and
its clients.

> > As it happens, I have done exactly the opposite: chosen a mail handler
> > who blocks very aggressively, because once the traffic hits my inbox
> > some of the most effective methods don't work any more.
> 
> What methods are those?

Router blocking, for one.
Past that, examination of the RCPT TO command, which isn't available to
the user.  FIltering early allows the ISP to look for dictionary attacks, for
instance.  A delivery attempt which hits nonexistent (or especially "trigger")
addresses is bogus from the beginning.

> > I worked hard to find my ISP, and you're telling me that I shouldn't
> > be allowed to have that choice?
> 
> Not at all.  You'll note that I wrote (quoted above) "should be required
> to offer unfiltered mail as well", meaning "as well as filtered mail".
> 
> I think filtering should be opt-in for each and every ISP.

It is with mine.  If I didn't want their filtering, I could have gone with a
less-aggressive ISP.  As it is, I pay extra to tunnel out to the one I have,
right past my connection provider's mailservers (which I never use.)

> It's just a matter of removing a gateway to abuse consolidated power.

*WHAT* consolidated power?  My ISP can't afford to run multiple mail
servers with different routing rules, or worse yet multiple subnets with
different routing rules.  Your proposal would damn near double my ISP
charges for all of its users, just so that some hypothetical spam lover
doesn't have to use Earthlink instead.

In other words, my ISP would have to give up one of its few marketing
advantages over the big ISPs in order to salve your sensitivities about
its hypothetical abuse of its entirely hypothetical power, effectively
running another small ISP out of business and concentrating more
power with AOL and MSN.

-- 
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+