[nzlug] (OT) Sorbs etc

[Daniel Pittman]

Tony Wills <ajwills at paradise.net.nz> writes:
> At 14:22 11/10/2006, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>>Tony Wills <ajwills at paradise.net.nz> writes:
>> > At 09:09 11/10/2006, Cliff Pratt wrote:
>> >>...
>> >>>Cliff Pratt wrote:
>> >>>> Greylisting is an evil perversion of the SMTP protocol and if I find
>> >>>> any servers using it I blacklist them. Nasty obnoxious bandwidth and
>> >>>> spool space wasters!
>> >> ...Greylisting adds a load to my servers. Greylisting is at the bounds
>> >> of the RFC and totally subverts the idea of retrying failed sends. The
>> >> retry facility is intended for temporary errors, not for SPAM control!
>> >
>> > My original point is the RBLs that block properly set-up mail servers
>> > that have never sent any SPAM, just because they're from a range of
>> > addresses that someone has decided are 'not proper' is a much greater
>> > perversion (if not violation) of the RFC.
>>
>>I don't think that word means what you think it means either...
>
> If you mean per·vert (pr-vûrt)
> 1. To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.
> 2. To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase.
> 3. To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse.
> 4. To interpret incorrectly; misconstrue or distort:
>
> then I think Cliff & I both mean what we say.

I probably should have added a ';)' to the end of the line; it was a
humorous quote rather than a serious suggestion you didn't know the
meaning of the word.

Of course, now in the cold light of your response I can see that my
intention, and humor, is really not as clear as I imagined when I wrote
it.  Sorry.

>>To the best of my knowledge there is no RFC, IETF approved or otherwise,
>>that mandates that any Internet host must accept any traffic that it
>>doesn't feel like accepting.
>>  ...
>
> Ok, I got carried away, being accused of using evil perverted software
> does that to one :-(

Yeah, I can understand that.  I don't think any of the claims that the
intent of any RFC, or protocol -- let alone the wording -- have really
been reasonable claims. :)

>> Claiming that an RBL that blocks "dial-up" ranges ... is violating
>> the RFC weakens your otherwise reasonable claim that this is a bad
>> idea.
>
> I never talked about "dial-up" ranges, only about the practice of
> including blocks of addresses ( whether these be dynamically assigned
> or static addresses) that someone deemed 'bad' regardless of their
> Spam generating status.  

Sorry, no, on rereading you didn't.  I read in "dial-up", or perhaps
better "dynamic" as implied by your comments but, yeah, I guess that
they were not.

> But good call, this discussion has been a bit emotionally loaded
> (excessive Spam does that to one :-).

Absolutely.  I can think of few topics that generate more smoke and less
fire. :/


> I think the suggestion of using greylisting in combination with an RBL
> (qv Matt Brown post) is a great idea - now how do we get the big ISPs
> to impliment it :-)

Write a web page about it, coupled with real world numbers showing the
effectiveness of this technique.  Make sure that you really do show
solid statistical evidence that it actually works, and has measurable
benefits.

Once you have done that the rest will flow -- the folks doing abuse for
large ISPs will leap to use anything that is actually effective at
stopping SPAM.[1]

Regards,
        Daniel

Footnotes: 
[1]  Obviously, this is something of a generalization, but in general it
     is true.  Not always effective, but certainly true. :)

-- 
Digital Infrastructure Solutions -- making IT simple, stable and secure
Phone: 0401 155 707        email: contact at digital-infrastructure.com.au
                 http://digital-infrastructure.com.au/