So what you're saying is that anyone with a broadband connection
should be prevented from delivering email directly.
I don't disagree, in the current milieu, but I'm sure there are some
who would disagree.
On December 21, 2004 at 15:51 william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net (william(at)elan.net)
wrote:
It should be ISP's responsibility to help other ISPs and as such most
appropriate way to deal with zombies is for ISPs to indicate which of
their ip blocks are used by broadband end-users and which are real mail
servers. If majority of ISPs did that, that would effectively cut the
zombie spam only to be within ISP's own network, which I'm sure they'd
deal with a lot more promptly (and if they don't its really their
problem and their users who have to suffer but nobody elses).
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Barry Shein wrote:
The idea of complete end-user control is a utopian ideal which died a
few years ago when spammers' zombie bots began hitting ISPs by the
thousands simultaneously.
At this point there are only two choices, either block at the ingress
(e.g., blocking network blocks and similar), or begin charging around
$1000/month for e-mail accounts to pay for the bandwidth and hardware
necessary to keep up with the unfettered flow (essentially, a
dedicated server with a dedicated T1 per mailbox.)
Anyone who says otherwise, notably EFF, is just ignorant.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs(_at_)TheWorld(_dot_)com |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg