"Mark" <asarian(_at_)xs4all(_dot_)nl> wrote:
How do *I* tell your "responsible" MTA from an "owned" machine
sending spam?
For the most obvious reason I can think of: you have never received a spam
from me, nor would you ever. :)
That's grossly inadequate. It means that I've got to process a lot
of mail from you on "spec", before I can gather enough data to decide
for myself that you're not a spammer.
I would prefer to have your intentions, and your responsibility
trail, be made public.
Without some additional information, you look *exactly* like a spammer
to me.
I guess there's the rub: the presumption of guilt. While true that I have
given you no proof that my relay is trustworthy, I have done nothing to the
contrary, either.
I think you're missing my point. I'm not presuming that you're a
spammer. I'm presuming that I know *nothing* about you, just like I
know nothing about spammers. Your statements on a public list that I
should trust you are irrelevant. I'm interested in how I can make my
MTA decide how to trust the next naive and well-intentioned user.
If you publicly state your accountability, and spammers don't, then
I *do* know something about you, and I can better decide how to deal
with messages from you. If both you and spammers become accountable,
then I still win, because I now can be *sure* that I'm discarding the
spam, and not your messages.
I am as opposed to spam as you are. Except that I stop the buck at
being branded the 'enemy' one fine day, just because I do not have
an ISP style connection to the Internet.
<sigh> The "enemy" is the unknown. The lack of information. The
lack of accountability. Spammers are simply the symptom that the
system is broken. They didn't break it, the system designers did.
Using that definition, people who want to remain unknown and
unaccountable appear to be the enemy. e.g. We have to recognize that
if we want to stop spammers from forging, we must stop our forging of
messages.
I am not opposed to change at all; it is just this particular form of
change, cutting off private port 25 acces from anyone who is not an ISP,
that I frown upon.
I think you are clearly missing much of what I write.
I have never proposed blocking port 25 for everyone but ISP's. It's
irresponsible and rude of you to imply that I have. The statement I
*have* made and that you have apparently missed, is that people who do
not accept responsibility for their use of the network should probably
have their network privelidges restricted, and port 25 blocking is one
option.
Free access does not equal access without limtations. I am all for the fair
limitation that access is unfettered, until abuse occurs. But before that
time, I like my ISP to treat me as if I were innocent, until proven guilty.
It's a nice idea. It has nothing to do with reality.
It's not about "innocence" or "guilt". I've never used those words,
because they're irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They confuse
the issue, get people excited about nonsense, and take attention away
from the issue at hand.
My position, is simple. People should be responsible for their use
of the network, and they should be held accountable for their use of
the network. "Innocence" and "guilt" simply don't apply.
If someone is unwilling to accept responsibility for their network,
then I don't see why anyone would willingly give them net access. Are
they then presumed "guilty" before doing anything? Nonsense.
When you rent a car, or a house, you accept responsibility for your
actions. Having net access should be no different. There's no
censorship involved, or presumption of guilt when the rental agency
refuses to give you a car, because you failed to sign the contract.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg