internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
- From: Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>
- To: internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:05:55 -0400
on Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:44:08PM -0400, Gregory Woodbury wrote:
> "It was written once upon a time (by David Minton):"
> > On 6/12/03 2:31 PM, "Steven Champeon" <schampeo AT hesketh.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 4) sendmail rulesets - started bouncing all mail sent direct from a
> > > dialup,
> > > cable modem, or DSL line using 100+ different patterns.
> >
> > I've been considering doing this as well. What is everyone's opinion on
> > blocking incoming mail from dynamic IP ranges? There are probably
> > Internetworkers running mail servers at home off residential class
> > broadband
> > access. Is it reasonable to bounce your mail in an effort to reduce SPAM
> > hitting my mailbox?
>
> Well, that depends on you, of ccourse, but I'm getting pretty sick of
> not being able to use direct-to-MX delivery from my machine. For most
> of my email I have do use the ISP outgoing mail server, so now
> everything is going through them.
So contact your ISP and have them assign you rDNS for your IP that
doesn't resolve to
durham-ar1-4-64-253-233.durham.dsl-verizon.net
AFAICT, it's no different from the tens of thousands of open proxies
running on all the other DSL/Cable/dialup hosts out there. And though
I, too, lament the passing of the old 'Net with all of its trust and
gentle ways, I also lament the massive waste of time spent fighting spam.
And I'll take what measures I can to prevent that waste.
Cheers,
Steve
--
hesketh.com/inc. v: (919) 834-2552 f: (919) 834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
Book publishing is second only to furniture delivery in slowness. -b. schneier
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam
, (continued)
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
David Minton, 06/08/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Michael Winslow Czeiszperger, 06/09/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Beckett, 06/09/2003
- Re: [spam score 5/10 -pobox] Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, burnett, 06/09/2003
- Re: [spam score 5/10 -pobox] Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Michael Winslow Czeiszperger, 06/09/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
David Minton, 06/08/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
David Minton, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Gregory Woodbury, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
David Minton, 06/13/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Gregory Woodbury, 06/13/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
-
[internetworkers] spam headache,
Michael Best, 06/16/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] spam headache, Steven Champeon, 06/16/2003
- [internetworkers] oh great!, Shea Tisdale, 06/17/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] oh great!, K. Jo Garner, 06/17/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] oh great!, burnett, 06/17/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] oh great!, Joey Carr, 06/17/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
David Minton, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.