, SecurityFocus 2001-03-15
Verio cuts off EFF co-founder John Gilmore over open mail server.
Expand all |
Post comment
ISP's should be emulating the telcos that came before them.
2001-03-16
someone247356_AT_yahoo.com (2 replies)
someone247356_AT_yahoo.com (2 replies)
ISP's should be emulating the telcos that came before them.
2001-03-17
NoSpammer (1 replies)
NoSpammer (1 replies)
ISP's should be emulating the telcos that came before them.
2001-03-19
someone247356_AT_yahoo.com (2 replies)
someone247356_AT_yahoo.com (2 replies)
ISPs are doing what the majority want
2001-03-16
someonesomewhere (1 replies)
someonesomewhere (1 replies)
Spam is wrong & open relays don't help BUT...!
2001-03-19
0160 Founder of The Foundation for Peace and Opportunity Seekers since 1987 & Admin of Small ISP in California USA (2 replies)
0160 Founder of The Foundation for Peace and Opportunity Seekers since 1987 & Admin of Small ISP in California USA (2 replies)

<open relays for spamming and spamming period.
What? When ISPs try to enforce closing relays to try and make the net more bareable for everyone, its wrong, but *IF* goverment passes a law prohibiting the use of open relays, thats okay? Whats the difference, ISPs would be doing the same, with the law or not.
As far as 'spamcops' sending complaints regarding open relays, hundereds of open relays are exploited per day, tens of thousands of email per relay... thats a hell of a lot of spam to just try and ignore. Not counting people trying to spam through their own connections.
The deal about open relays is that the more professional spammers use two or three open relays on different ISPs, making it nearly impossible to track down. The even better spammers will use 2 or more different 'sets' of open relays. That would require all the owners of the open relays to divulge their logs voluntarily. Those who could care less if they have a open relay wouldnt bother to send in the information. So SOMEbody has to break the link, it might as well be a ISP.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/173/5036#5036