lists-qmail at maexotic
May 10, 2010, 5:05 PM
Post #5 of 5
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 04:35:15PM -0600, Anony Mous wrote:
> A root problem is dynamic IPs. It's a bad practice. If you have a customer,
> give em a static ip.
Sorry, but BLAH!
99.99% of all broadband customers dont't need a static IP address.
If you want to run a mailserver, go ahead and get a contract with a
static IP address. All else is bad practice, laziness, and poor planning
on your side.
ISPs should block port 25 outgoing by default. Customers who want
to make outgoing connections to port 25 should be able to enable this
via the customer interface. Would cut down on spam some magnitudes and
also on DNS traffic.
> And we need to get on with IPv6.
But everyone having a static IP address on their home desktops gives all
trackers and user profile creators wet dreams (multiple per night).
And it doesn't change the spam problem in any way.
> There's no excuse. It's all bad practice, laziness, and poor planning. In no
> case does any of it justify blacklisting an innocent, no matter what kind of
> IP they have.
Come on, stop whining.
I have my own list with about 1000 domains right now and I reject from hosts
I block more than 99% of all messages and the only two messages that were false
positives in the last 5 years were a promotion newsletter from the clueless
people at Sony (mailserver has no revDNS) and one from a forum system which
the admin had emergency moved to a new server due to a breakin' and which had no
reverse DNS, also.
I know of no legit mail blocked by my wildcard domain block.
So you say I should install some CPU hogging bullshit content scanners and scan
some 1000 mails a day just for the option of maybe receiving a message from a
whiner behind a dynamic domain? All this for 1 in 1,000,000 users?
No, sorry but NO.
I am not going to pay for you being lazy, using bad practice and having poor
My server at home is also on a dynamic range I block, and injects its
mails via submission to my server.
> It's not THEIR fault the system designers weren't good enough
> to do the job right. Why should they be punished for it?
It surely is not the fault of the users if some of the programs they
run are vulnerable. But IT IS the fault of the users to not (automatically)
upgrade the system, run an uptodate virus scanner (if they insist on using
windows) and to be so fscking stupid/horny/greedy to click on any damn link
or attachment they get send.
And yes, updating is more work in windows, but there are tools like Secunia
PSI which I always recommend to anyone asking (it is free and no I am not
related to Secunia in any way).