Comcast and SORBS

[Derek Martin]

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>