Comcast and SORBS

[invalid at pizzashack.org (Derek Martin)]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 09:40:26PM -0500, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
> Forcing SMTP traffic through their servers makes it easier for them to
> stop spam before it hits the rest of the net, but doesn't (to my view)
> really stop you from doing much of anything.  

Well, since running my own mail server without interference from my
ISP is one of the two main reasons I want an Internet connection, I
assure you that you are mistaken.  And it isn't just about privacy.
It's more about control...

Besides, just because they /can/ log my packets doesn't mean they
will.  This is a lot more resource intensive than doing it on the
server, as others have pointed out.  On the server it can be done as a
matter of course.  At the packet layer, someone has to have a reason
for paying attention...  They're not going to simply log every packet
that goes out.  It's not feasable.

> Which means that someone sending email from a dynamic netblock has a
> higher chance of having email lost due to its content than otherwise,
> so I don't see how that's a very satisfactory solution.
 
I don't like it either...  I did say "at most."  But I want neither.
In any event, it's an improvement.  "A chance that some mail may be
lost" is better than "no mail gets through."  Especially since if it
is the only criteria by which it is scored as spam (as virtually all
mail I send out would be) the risk is basically zero.

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  Thank the spammers.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.blu.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20041125/e6788a95/attachment.sig>