Dr. Ernst Molitor [molitor(_at_)uni-bonn(_dot_)de] wrote:
this is perfectly fine with me. Currently, spammers use the easiest way
they have; with spf in effect, they will continue to do so. To the best
of my knowledge, advertisements are expensive by every medium but email.
Now make the spammers having to buy a couple of thousand domains to
continue their ugly job: It will not deter them, since this way of
advertisement will still be much cheaper than any other advertisement
channel.
You are mixing up "advertisement" and "spam" here. No serious company wants
their products to be "advertised" through spam, as this usually would cause way
more damage to their corporate image than it were ever able to increase their
sales. Ask Cyveillance, Inc.[1] if you don't believe it.
It will perhaps make them move their businesses into remote
locations - but would it be fair to virtually exclude third-world
countries from email simply because domains can be bought cheaply?
Who is talking about blacklisting *top-level* domains? Nobody except you is.
In addition, blacklisting will continue to hit perfectly friendly
people.
Yes, and rightly so. It's a fact that without innocent customers,
spam-friendly providers' lives would be a great deal harder. It's not that the
anti-spam community wants to punish all innocent AOL customers for the acts of
one spamming AOL customer. I already said in another message that spam reports
need to be weightet against the amount of *legitimate* spam coming from a given
source before blacklisting that source. But there's a line that needs to be
drawn beyond which an ISP (or domain owner), and all of his users, has to be
penalized for not acting against his spamming users.
Most of the IPs my provider offers for DSL subscribers are blacklisted.
What blacklists are you talking about?
Many dynamically allocated IP addresses are indeed listed by certain
blacklists, but this is not being done primarily to prevent spam, but to force
users to use their ISPs mail relays instead of relaying directly. The reason
for this is that ISPs need to have their own logs so they can confirm
complaints about allegedly spamming customers of theirs.
If I were T-Online (a major German ISP), and someone sent me a complaint about
one of my users having relayed abusive mail directly (bypassing my designated
mail relay), I could not confirm that allegation and thus I could do nothing
against my customer. On the other hand, my mail server records logs of every
message relayed, and while it doesn't log the message's text (that wouldn't be
lawful in Germany anyway), it records meta data like time of relaying, SMTP
authentication information, envelope sender and recipients, etc. against which
I can match the complaint.
Most probably, but a few of the provider's customers really
are spammers. I don't consider it acceptable to punish lots of nice guys
(and gals) just to hit the bad guys, too.
Why are you talking about punishment? *I* as a receiver of mail can decide to
receive mail from whoever I want. If I don't receive some "important" mail
from an "innocent" customer of a guilty ISP, I can live with it if it keeps *a
lot* of spam away from me.
IMHO, we have little choice but to accept some degree of spam.
This is a non-statement. Of course we have to accept "some degree" of spam.
The question is, what degree?
Along similar lines, we do accept traffic jams and don't forbid cars
irrespective of the fact that without them, no jams would occur.
This comparison is nonsense. It's not as if the "e-mail" means of
communication broke down when SPF were adopted. Be careful when predicting
"the end of the internet", this prophecy has been strained too much in the
past, so you'll probably just be making a fool of yourself with that.
[1] http://www.cyveillance.com/spam.htm
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)���v¼����ߴ� �1I�-�Fqx(_dot_)com