Comcast and SORBS

[invalid at pizzashack.org (Derek Martin)]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 10:41:36AM -0500, Don Levey wrote:
> > I just flat-out disagree with your assertion that Comcast should block
> > outbound port 25 in the interest of spam reduction.
> >
> Fair enough; my experience has been different.  Certainly if you've got a
> business relying on that service, you should have a business account with
> the ISP, which normally includes a fixed IP.

Where does that leave Joe Tech, who isn't a business, and can't afford
to pay business rates, but still wants to run his own site?  He has
all the knowledge necessary to run his own mail server, and doesn't
want his mail going through is ISP's mail server, for whatever
reasons...  All he needs is a connection to the rest of the world, and
an ISP that will leave him alone.  But the fact is, there is a dearth
of providers who are amenable to such people.  If you're lucky enough
to be able to get Speakeasy DSL where you live, you might be in
business.  Otherwise, AFAIK, you're basically screwed.

Idealistically speaking, it shouldn't be that way.

In practice, blocking spam from dynamic net blocks is not a real
solution, and spammers will find a way around it, as they always do.
The only REAL solution is to find a way to make it economically
non-viable.

And to add to Rich's argument, almost all of the spam I get is from
China.

And FWIW, in case it's not obvious from my .sig, I am no lover of
spam or spammers...  I still don't want ISPs blocking port 25.

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  Thank the spammers.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.blu.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20041124/9287b0bb/attachment.sig>