[Exim] Re: Re: unexpected disconnection

On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 13:42:00 GMT, Wakko Warner <wakko@???>
wrote:

>> And when I say
>> public I am meaning public in the sense that the front door of your
>> house is "public", not public as in "public house" :-)
>
> It might be public in the sense that anyone can connect (er, as long
> as I didn't blacklist the IP), but as far as it's usage, it isn't
> public. It's for sending email to me, not to everyone on the
> internet.
Umm - I thought that's what I was saying. In case you're not familar it
the term "public house" is an old UK term for a pub/bar/generally open
boozing place :-)

> If you're using mindspring for instance and you helo as
> aol.com, no, I will not allow it. To me, that's not the right way
> (and unless I read the rfc wrong, you're supposed to HELO of your
> system's name, not someone elses).
Don't think you get any arguments from me or anyone else on the list
about that. Whatever tools are available to catch out-and-out lies by
spammers I use also. Perhaps you can share some of your ideas with the
Exim FAQ maintainers?

> IMO, your server, your rules.
In as much as what you do inside your 'house' is your prerogative. At
your 'front door' you need to abide by conventions laid down for the
purpose of facilitating communications between systems. Otherwise you
might just find yourself blacklisted somewhere.

>> > I didn't realize how much spam came from korea.
>>
>> You mean 'bounces off' Korea don't you? On its way out from the US.
>
> Yes. When I said comes from korea, I meant comes from a korean IP
> (relayed, or whatever).
Yes I know you were meaning that - but you didn't get my little sideways
dig at the *source* of most of the spam in the world, the old US of A. I
think the best solution is to dry up spam at the source rather than
slicing off whole sections of the (innocent) world from email. I think it
is utterly amazing looking at the whole anti-spam "industry" being built
up because one group of people are not being controlled in their country
of origin. It must be because there is not enough money in it yet for
American lawyers, otherwise spam would have stopped years ago.

> I know someone else on this list blocks not only korea, but also
> taiwan. I haven't blocked taiwan yet, but I might. Well, wait, that
> might not be RFC compliant either.
Now, now - don't get nasty ;-)

> This is why I said I wasn't fully compliant. The RFCs apparently
> didn't take spammers into consideration whereas I do.
They didn't conceive the inventiveness of naked greed - that's where we
come in to dream up ways to stop these guys... *without* breaking the
system. Until such time as they are stopped properly and officially.

PS