>>>>> "Renaud" == Renaud Allard <renaud@???> writes:
Ian> but my sender verification callouts don't fill mailboxes or
Ian> server queues. And, they do stop lots of spam.
>> Only at the expense of others, which isn't acceptable.
Renaud> In a perfect world we would need neither callouts neither
Renaud> blacklists as people wouldn't send spam in the first
Renaud> place. But we are not in a perfect world.
Spam is bad because it is the use of other people's resources without
permission.
Trying to block spam by using other people's resources without
permission is just as bad as sending spam.
Renaud> It is a fact that callouts stop spam, are better than full
Renaud> fledged bounces (or TMDA) and don't fill mailboxes.
Renaud> It is also a fact that DNS lists that list IP ranges without
Renaud> any proof of spam just prevent other people from sending
Renaud> ham. This is also at the expense of these "others", which is
Renaud> also unacceptable.
No-one's forcing you to use any DNS list. No-one's forcing you to
expend server resources in providing any DNS list. DNS lists can't
interfere with your ability to _receive_ your own mail, or to send
mail to other servers that want to receive your mail.
None of this is true for callouts. We are forced to expend server
resources in handling callouts. Our ability to receive our own
email is impaired by other people's use of callout verification.
(How well would your mailserver stand up to receiving four orders
of magnitude more connections per second than it should?)
Renaud> So we are just talking on what expense is the worst.
No. We're talking about WHOSE EXPENSE IT IS.
Expend your own resources how you choose; but once you start presuming
to think that you have some claim on other people's resources then you
have crossed the line.
--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com
