ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Allowing MTAs to split messages to different recipients

2001-01-17 18:50:14
At 08.15 -0700 01-01-15, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com wrote:
 > I am working on a compendium for a course I give at my university.
 A controversial text from the compendium is quoted below. If you
 think that this is wrong, tell me.

OK, I'll tell you: It's wrong on many points.

I sort of expected this reply, that is why I wrote my message
to get more opinions on this issue. I will rewrite the text
based on the valuable input you and others have given on
my flame.

At 08.15 -0700 01-01-15, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com wrote:
 > Spamming could be counteracted more
 efficiently using other methods than this.

And these methods are what exactly? If there's something more effective than
open relay blocking I'd like to hear what it is.

Relay blocking certainly is not effective. Spamming just increases
every year. Of course, you might claim that without relay
blocking, spamming would have increased even more.

Relay blocking was in reality not meant to counteract spamming,
but to reduce the load of spammers taking over MTAs to forward
their spams. Thus, it was not meant to make life more bearable
to users, but to make life more bearable to MTA owners. But
those who introduced relay blocking wrongly claimed that it stop
spamming.

If relay blocking had been effective, it would be equally effective
if it did not stop smaller amounts of relaying, but only massive
amounts of relaying.
--
Jacob Palme <jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>