Re: Spam and Censors

Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: John Bolding
Date:  
To: exim-users
Subject: Re: Spam and Censors
> > /* SOAPBOX
> > Be that as it may, when my users complain about this, I explain
> > that I am not censoring mail, I am refusing to allow those who
> > won't play by the cooperative rules of the Internet the use of my
> > part of the Internet. This is why I use router blocks for abusive
> > or incompetently administered networks -- if they won't or can't
> > play by the rules, they have no right to use *any* part of my
> > network. Or yours.
> > END SOAPBOX */


A Resounding YES!

>
> Perhaps it would be as well to accept that different people and organisations
> that are in the position of being "Internet Service Providers" may find that
> they are under differing moral and legal obligations. This isn't really an
> issue for the Exim list unless the Exim program were to make it impossible
> or difficult to implement any particular policy.


Perhaps. But, I know that if it were not for SPAM we would not have
started using exim, so this could be a good place to start to organize
against SPAM.

I think all of us need a repository of spam sender addresses so that
we can block as much of it as possible. Perhaps another list?

One recent comment to this thread said their site was blocking 30 new
spammers per week. That we postmasters have to resort to this
is totally disgusting. At FirstBase, we get about 3-4 per day,
and we block those as quickly as possible.

We now have about 260 blocked addresses/sites.
And we publish our list! (http://www.firstbase.com/spam).

We also publish the exim filter we use
to block the list. Our filter even covers situations where a
good user at a blocked site wants to be able to send us email
(we merely store that one users email address into an accept-user list).

Very soon, SPAM will be against the law, just like junk faxes are.
The reason: the recipient pays to receive it. Already, courts have
prohibited cyberpromo from accessing certain networks.
Its just going to take time to get the existing laws interpreted
by courts to cover SPAM.

I think we all owe Phil a tremendous round of applause for providing
such a fine tool that we can use to fight irresponsible net commerce.

-cc