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 |
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:01:45PM -0500, Don Levey wrote: > Keep in mind that the post to which I was responding specifically mentioned > "Joe Tech" as a small business. Thus, the business-related discussion here. > If the business portion does not apply to you, then clearly neither do the > comments. In point of fact, what I said was this: On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 12:52:36AM +0900, Derek Martin wrote: > 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? On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:01:45PM -0500, Don Levey wrote: > > Most of the computers on comcast's networks which send out spam are > > compromised, working on the behalf of criminals. I'm sure there is a > > solution here, but blocking EVERYBODY is the wrong one. > > > But you're NOT blocked - you can run your mailserver and smarthost through > Comcast's server. I /AM/ blocked. It's the Comcast server, which I don't want to use, which isn't blocked. > You can receive mail directly. You're not impeded at all, except in > those things which have the potential for severe abuse and are also > against the TOS. Punish people who commit abuse, not those who could... Comcast has access to the MAC addresses of its clients. They can provide access control on that basis. They can block people who become offenders. If they do this, there is no need for the rest of the world to reject mail from their entire net block. There are other workable solutions that don't punnish the innocent. > This is not *THE* real solution, but it is part of the solution. Or > do you seriously think that abusing, say, 80% of the network is not > worse than abusing 25%? The rest of the solution may include making > sure that the remaining 25% becomes less spam-friendly. In fact, it makes no difference. People who use spam-blocking technologies will not deliver the spam, whether or not their ISP blocks dynamic addresss. Technologies like spam assassin do a good job of catching spam and getting rid of them. There are workable solutions that don't punnish the innocent. Those should be employed instead of net block blocking. At absolute most, the net block should be used to increase the messages spam score -- NOT block it outright. -- 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/20041125/8d377b55/attachment.sig>
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |