Re: [exim] Has anyone done this?

Ian Eiloart wrote:


> >> Trying to establish TCP connections to other machines that are
> >> connected to the internet is not illegal. At least it isn't in
> >> Germany, and that's a feature.
> >
> > No, but it is extremely annoying in most cases, and ends up getting
> > the client firewalled, (in my book anyway),
>
> That's ridiculous. Why would an SMTP server that's trying to send me
> mail object that I try to make a TCP connection to it. I already do
> ident callouts to the sending host. Surely its completely fair to make a
> callout to a sending host as frequently as it tries to send mail to me.

Did I ever infer that I objected to a reverse connection when I send mail
to someones system? No, I did not. I said that not caching a positive
result with regards to a SAV lookup, or other methods of authenticating
the legitimacy of the sender|client were irresposible and annoying. They
are. Pure and simple fact.

Do a SAV probe on my server more than once when the same sender address
is used and within a respectable, and cacheable, span of time, and you
would be blocked. The 'cannot be arsed' attitude that some have with
regards to responsibly configuring their systems to minimise the impact
they have on other peoples systems is such that, if they cannot configure
their system in a responsible manner, I do not trust the rest of their
setup, and so the lack of consideration is duly returned. Tough luck.

Also, did I ever say that I did not allow ident lookups. No. They are one
area where I digress because of the amount of problems which would be
caused by blocking those.



> It looks to me like the list is playing the game of trying to find the
> most spurious objections to Marc's proposals that it can - again.
>
> > if the results are not cached.
>
> I think he already suggested something like that.

No, he did not. By the time the above reply was sent, possibly, but upto
the conception and posting of my initial reply, that had not been
mentioned. Objectionable I may be. Blind, however, I am not.



> > I will be honest though, even after Peter pointed out the plus point
> > if implemented correctly, I still cannot see an overall benefit from
> > this method. The concept would be simple to circumvent if it became
> > generally deployed.
>
> As are most of the methods that we use to prevent spam. Its an arms
> race.

Too true. But, once again, did I ever infer that I agreed with any other
method. You have no concept of what I find objectionable, so to say that I
am trying to single out any one persons ideas as bunkum without having a
relative base figure to compare to is, on your part Sir, pure speculation.


Matt