IP address reputation, BorderWare
res at ausics.net
Fri Apr 6 10:59:17 IST 2007
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Rick Chadderdon wrote:
> Res wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Rick Chadderdon wrote:
>>> I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and simply assume that my
>>> writing style is not clear enough for me to make a point to you. Our
>> Rick you've made your point, you dont like people using it,
> That's *not* my point. That's merely a related fact. The point I was trying
> to make was *why* I don't like it. And the discussion I was trying to get
Much the same thing from where I sit I'm afraid.
> from you was philosophical. I wanted to know whether you justify all
> behavior based upon the *amount* of effect it has on others or upon whether
> it has any unjustified effect at all. Whether a third-party effect is the
its based on what affects *us*, no one in their right mind bases decisions
on what affects someone elses network, they are not employed to worry
about that, they are employed to protect their own network.
> Again, if effectiveness is the measure of justification for anti-spam tools,
> then TMDA should be used by everyone, right? It forces spammers to use a
look at greylisting now, and look where it was a few years ago, the exact
same position as SV.
The only thing I have against grey-listing is there is it banks up hte
outgoing queues, and is only a semi effective anti-spool tool, as
spammers are more clueful now and use modified smtp engines in their worms
and viruses, that honour teh 4.x.x and retry, sure not all spammers are
doing it this way.... yet...it becomes more noticable every month.
But I dont go round telling people not to use it despite thinking its the
pits, because i know they are doing what they consider to be in their best
interest so for that I can not shoot them down.
>> No, but you are starting to come accross as one who accuses others of not
>> seeing your point or argueing 'for the sake of it' because we will not turn
>> around and say its a bad thing because some see it as a good thing.
> No, I don't expect agreement. I merely want you to explain how you justify
> the use of one third-party invasive tool over another. I suspect that it's
I think I have, about 30 times already. basically it is tuff luck if it
did not emit from your network, but if im asked to let someone in who
claims to be from you, i'll ask , like your postoffice master, if this
person really lives at that address. ( now i know we are going round in
> the degree of impact which you use to make your decision.
any positive impact on my network is what counts, and if I deny inbound
mail to a customer from someone claiming to be at your palce that is not ,
even just once, then its worth it.
> fine. We won't agree, but you will at least have been honest with me about
> why you think it's okay. And I'll know that you "got my point." And, to be
I thought i have, 31 times now.
Let Novell know what you think of their back door deal with the devil.
Sign the petition today: http://techp.org/p/1/
More information about the MailScanner