North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Verizon is easily fooled by spamming zombies

  • From: Gadi Evron
  • Date: Wed Jun 01 13:50:03 2005

> Yes, $50/month.

Then there is the problem. If she pays for the service of sending email
using the vanity domain through the ISP's servers, then it should be,
naturally, allowed.

> No, 100s of 1000s of not-so-clued users have vanity domains.  Have  you
> checked how many domains are registered on a daily basis these days?

Much like they pay for domains, and for hosting, or for iron, or for
bandwidth or whatever your cup of tea is, so should everyone else.
Nothing comes for free and the abuse vs. use ratio is not favorable.

Really, why should they be able to pay for domains and not arrange to
pay an extra buck or 20? Well, we all like freebies.

> Who said "open"?  There are lots of ways to keep spam from your  network
> down.
> If you have a mail server and allow it to send mail, it can be  abused. 
> All you can do is try to make it harder to abuse.  One of  the ways we
> (the collective "we" who run the Internet) have decided  to do this is
> by forcing people to send outbound mail through their  ISP's mail
> server, not through random open relays.

Through _A_ mail server. Paid for or not is another issue, but the
service is still a service.

I get most of my domains hosted on friends' servers, that is still a
service even if I don't pay for it.

> If the ISP wants to use SMTP AUTH or other mechanisms to lower abuse, 
> that's fine.  But to say "only allow from addresses - but  allow
> them from anywhere on the 'Net" is kinda ... silly.

No, it makes perfect sense but that is the one thing I fear we'll have
to agree to disagree on.

> The solution presented here is not only not a solution, it is also a 
> problem.

Okay, then I suppose I don't understand the problem. How exactly do you