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 Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 06:19:40PM -0500, Bob George wrote: > Derek Martin wrote: > > > [...] As we have seen, this apparently doesn't solve the problem. > > Then I'm confused as to what the problem IS. In broadly stated terms, the problems is that individuals are being restricted from running their own Internet services (specifically e-mail, but the argument applies to other services too, where for example incoming HTTP ports are being blocked, etc.) without paying exhorbitant fees (i.e. buying business-class service) for the privilege to do so, through the actions of large corporations with the finacial resources and market share to effect this. These business practices are unfair, and consumers should not tolerate it. Businessess exist to provide PEOPLE with services. But they have come to think of the relationship in reverse; people exist to provide THEM with a revenue stream. We have allowed them to think this way by being apathetic. We should not tolerate this in our society. > Rich's original post > referred to SORBS tagging of dynamic IPs. This is what started the thread, but it is only part of the problem. Big companies like AOL block IP ranges seperately from SORBS. It is the same issue, even if it is not exactly what Rich posted originally. > Even if your ISP allows outbound SMTP (Rich's does I believe), others > may well blacklist such ranges. Like it or not, that's how it is. Any > solution will have to contend with this reality at some level. It doesn't have to be. As consumers, we do have some power; but only if enough consumers care, and complain. Getting people to care is the hard part. > > [..] It shouldn't be. E-mail is becoming just as important a means > > of communication as the telephone; the ISP should not have the right > > to block the sender just because they don't like their net address > > block, just as phone companies can't block incoming calls from their > > competitors (or for any reason, AFAIK). > > But of course an individual can refuse calls from whoever they like. Indeed, and individuals can and should be able to run their own spam filters to dump e-mail from people they don't want to communicate. In my opinion, the ISP should not be performing this role on behalf of people. Yes, it saves spam... But some people WANT that spam as testified to by the fact that it actually does generate a considerable amount of revenue. Ultimately the decision of who can deliver mail to be should be left up to me. This is one of many reasons I want to run my own mail server. It gives me that. If I WANT to run with SORBS, I can. If I don't, I don't have to. As it happens, I don't, because SORBS blocks mail from legitimate people, some of whom I happen to want to communicate with. Yes, relaying my outboud mail through my ISP still affords me this option, but this is only part of the argument, and doing so doesn't address different issues. > > [...] If I am running my own server, I can opportunistically encrypt > > the SMTP session (when the peer supports it) so that my ISP can not > > see the contents of my communications. > > Hit-or-miss at best, as you noted. So the ability to run an SMTP server > doesn't really guarantee anything at this level. But I am not a clueless user; I can check to see whose mail servers encrypt and don't, and I can make decisions with how to communicate with people on that basis. > That's a different issue than SORBS and general tagging of dynamic-IP > sourced messages as possible spam, agreed? Yes, but I think it's still relevant. I think Rich would agree. [Rich?] > > [...] Percentagewise, I'm sure that's true, but that doesn't mean it > > should be impossible. > > Again, many DO seem to be running their own servers from dynamic IP > addresses. The actual problem Rich cited is that others -- whether > fairly or not -- have deemed it a likely source of spam. Protestations > of unfairness are likely to fall on deaf ears. That doesn't mean that > there is nothing that can be done, but of course, it may cost or not be > particularly "convenient" to do so. You're right. One way that it could change is if there were enough of us who want to run our own server, making noise. There are many reasons why people don't want to run their own mail server (lack of knowledge, time, etc.), but ideally I think there are also many reasons why people SHOULD want to run their own server: - It gives you more control. You can, for example, choose to use SORBS, or not. LIkewise with any other measure/feature which requires control over the server. Another example is advanced filtering/sorting using something like procmail. - It is definitely more private, regardless of what the nay-sayers say. Using your ISP's mail server gives them unrestricted access to all your communications, which they can do anything they want with, without your knowledge. If you run your own server, your ISP can still capture packets, but there's not a lot of incentive to do this. It's harder, and requires more work. Plus as I've said, if you and all your friends enable STARTTLS, your communications will be encrypted, and your ISP can't do much about that. PGP is a more sure-fire way to deal with this problem, but it may not be available to all users (it may be to hard to use, or to learn, or it may be illegal, etc.). This is not perfect privacy, but it's a lot better than giving your ISP unrestricted access to your communications. - It is usually faster. Your own server isn't clogged up with messages for a bazillion other users. If you're on a fast link, your mail comes right to you, and arrives immediately. - You are not dependent on your ISP's mail server. If theirs goes down, you still get mail. Of course, the down side is, if yours goes down, you're SOL until you fix it. This can be mittigated by partnering with a buddy and running relays for eachother. > If find it strange that the ability to send unprotected SMTP is seen as > any great protection of one's freedom, and that energy is expended > arguing that it is. I have given several reasons why it is. I have also stated that opportunistic emcryption can be used to protect your communications effortlessly. If you and the people you communicate with all have their own servers set up this way, you don't need PGP, which is, quite frankly, generally quite difficult to use. > This thread seems to have become a rant-fest rather than any effort to > coordinate a solution to this, and related problems. If that's the > intent, fine. Here's my proposal: Go to your ISP and demand that they allow you to run your own mail server. write e-mail and letters to all the companies you know of which block e-mail based on netblocks. There's no need for them to do this; there are other methods they can use which will not penalize legitimate users. Finally, write to your comngressman to demand that ISPs start acting more fairly. I've spelled out the problem, and the reasons why it is a problem, as clearly and completely as I can think how to. I've provided a potential long-term solution, which will almost certainly not cmoe to pass, because people only worry about unfair business practices when they feel directly affected by them, and most people just don't care about running their own server. The numbers just don't add up. But I hope you will not think that I'm just ranting; I really want to change this, though I'm not hopeful. I'm open to other suggestions, so long as the end result is that I can use my PERSONAL mail server at reasonable, PERSONAL prices, an not be arbitrarily blocked for no good reason. But it seems like it will require legislative changes. -- 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/20041126/4cdf25d0/attachment.sig>
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |