![]() |
Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
discuss-bounces at blu.org wrote: > I've had a Linux-based home SMTP server since, well, I first > discovered Linux in 1992. All of a sudden I'm having trouble getting > messages sent out; about a third of them are getting bounced by spam > filters. > > Turns out the good folks at SORBS, a service used by all the Big > Corporate Giants in the email business, decided to add the netblock > 66.31.0.0/16 to their SMTP blacklist. The database entry was created > 5 days ago. > > For now what I've been doing is adding Big Corporate Giant domains > (and various smaller entities that use SORBS) one-by-one into my > /etc/mail/mailertable file--forcing outbound email for those specific > sites to relay through Comcast's SMTP server. This is obviously not > a reliable long-term solution, and over time is eroding my privacy > rights as more companies tighten their rules against private SMTP > servers. > > What's a cost-effective way around this? Dump Comcast for an > un-blocked service? Buy a static IP from Comcast (I can't even > figure out how, their marketing website is useless)? Buy service at > a web-hosting company somewhere? Throw in the towel and relay all my > email through Comcast, where it can be readily monitored by nefarious > corporate and/or government entities who do NOT have consumer > privacy-interests in mind? > > Or should we start a letter-writing campaign to SORBS and other > blacklist providers to come up with an alternative spam-blocking > solution that doesn't drop a sledgehammer on all those of us who > prefer to run home-based SMTP servers to transmit a handful of emails > per day? > I'm on the other side of this one. I run on a dynamic IP cable modem, and smarthost all my outgoing email through my ISP's smtp server. Forget about perceived privacy problems for a moment - it's in the contract. I could buy a static IP from them and route out directly; currently, they BLOCK outgoing port 25 traffic past their network for dynamic IPs. I wish more ISPs would do this. In fact, I specifically wish Comcast would do this. I block each and every Comcast connection I can from their dynamic blocks, because they DON'T do this. Why? Because at one point I was getting hit with over 1000 attempts per day to deliver spam and viruses from dynamic IPs on Comcast's network, and Comcast didn't do a damn thing about it. Still, I get quite a few hits; because of the blocks they go right in the bitbucket. I have no illusion about "privacy" rights when I'm using someone else's private property for my transmission, even under contract. And they'd be fools to permit unmonitored communication over their network. -Don
![]() |
|
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |