Re: [exim] Re: Thoughts on Open Relays

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Marc Perkel wrote:

>
>
> Jim Roberts wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Perkel" <marc@???>
> >
> >>
> >> The only reason people got aaway from open relays is bacause of the
> >> spammers. But if I solve that problem then why not?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Err... Many good reasons have already been posted, having nothing to
> > do with spam. But I'll toss one more log on the fire, what the heck.
> >
> > The very most effective first line defense, against any misuse of
> > email service, is blocking open relaying. If someone tries to relay
> > without authenticating first, then 100% of the time, with zero false
> > positives, they should be blocked. It's easy, consumes no additional
> > resources (already have to check if the addressee is local anyway), is
> > extremely effective (100% accuracy), saves bandwidth (reject before
> > data), and imposes zero cost on innocent 3rd parties (in fact, helps
> > out innocent 3rd parties). And... I don't have to run ANY of those
> > messages through SA or any other resource-consuming anti-spam test!
> > (Works even better than the "penalty box" idea... heh heh)
> >
> > Now, give even one good reason why anyone should NOT use such an
> > incredibly cheap and effective tool?
> >
> Some people I know might find an open relay to be a way to send a
> message when they might suspect the their ISP might be taping their
> email. I had a situation like that happen to someone and if they had a
> trusted open relay they could have sent email to people without Apple
> taping their messages.

If some people you know would like to relay through you, you can
provide that for them without being open to everyone.

Unless I'm missing some point here?

I must say you you do some brave thinking. :^)

Marilyn Davis

>
> So - there are legitimate uses for open relays.
>
>

--