[Mimedefang] Re: Great open letter about anti-virus, emails, bounces, etc.

[Mitch]

Hi Richard,

I completely agree with you, and infact am in the same position (with
a useless UK provider with a pathetic ISP mail host) but i can see the
other point of view. The mass of spam email has led to desperate measures
which we must suffer. Hell i've even had my name on blacklists as spammers
have used it in forger headers. You can't really blame those affected taking
drastic measures mentioned. And for sure others (non defangers) will be taking
similar measures (a lot of JaNET has done it too). The only way out is to
find a colleague with a static IP address who is not on any blacklists willing
to relay your mail for you.

My opinion is that blacklisting by host (RBL, etc..) is not a good thing and only
email content based filtering is viable in this day and age. I'd really like
to see whitelisting only email such that no one is allowed to email me unless they
are in my whitelist - after all we don't let anyone thru the front door of our house ?

Cheers
Mitch

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Mimedefang] Re: Great open letter about anti-virus, emails, bounces,  etc.
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:12:33 +0100
From: Richard Cooper <richard.cooper at dagroupplc.com>
Reply-To: mimedefang at lists.roaringpenguin.com
To: <mimedefang at lists.roaringpenguin.com>


From: Royce Williams [mailto:royce.williams at acsalaska.net]
> We've had good luck with kicking back a 550 that simply says 
> "Mailing directly
> from dynamics refused; please use your provider's outgoing 
> mail server to
> relay."  Even if they're a fly-by-night keeping costs down, 
> all they have to
> do is use the mail server that their connectivity already 
> (almost always)
> includes.  For the few exceptions where Layer 8 has insisted 
> that we allow it,
> we simply do so at the sendmail level.  This is pretty rare, 
> though; most legit
> folks seem to catch on without too much trouble and make the switch.

It seems that everyone so far has agreed with this principle so far so I think I have to speak out against. This seems to me like you are just kicking the little guys in the teeth. Fair enough a lot 
of junk might come from dynamic ranges but there are also some of us running our own servers legitimately - people who can't or don't want to move our mail through an ISPs relay because it is 
notoriously unreliable (not to mention new UK laws meaning ISPs MUST retain email data for 1 year - this is our only vague chance at avoiding these draconian measures). My ISPs email servers are 
renowned for their problems and they do not offer a static IP option. I also happen to run two very small business domains off my home servers (we're talking hobby based businesses that never even 
break even). And more than that I like to do it simply out of principle and I don't see why I should have to pay more money or suffer a worse service just because some email admits are rewriting the 
rules.

I realise that money means more than principles to big business, but this to me is one step too far. You're trying to force people to use a centralised Internet just to save yourself a few extra 
processor cycles or to save Joe Workstation from  pressing the delete button a couple of extra times. You have unilaterally decided that it is 'illegal' to run a mail server from a dynamic IP.

Sorry if this sounds like an attack, its not meant in that way, However I feel like I have to stand up for us dynamic IP cable and ADSL users because all you're doing is taking the easy way and 
ignoring the fallout.

Please, somebody back  me up :)

Cheers
Ric

-- 
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the
originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this
email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority,
states them to be the views of DA Group.