On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> jason kawaja <kawaja@ece.ufl.edu> wrote:
> > > Maybe where you come from. The last ISP I was with listed all of its
> > > customers addresses as "dynamic", even when they weren't, and the mail
> > > server they provided lost ~10% of all mail and regularly introduced 4-5
> > > *day* delivery delays to the rest.
> > >
> > > ISP-provided mail servers have gotten significantly worse over the last
> > > ten years, to the point that simply saying "relay through your ISP's
> > > smarthost" is no longer good advice.
> >
> > quality of service can degrade anywhere, it's up to the paying customer
> > using the service to demand for better by perhaps switching providers.
>
> That was in a city with exactly two available ISPs. The one I describe was
> the more popular of the two. The other's mail servers are no better. If you
> want a pipe from somewhere else, be prepared to trench better than a thousand
> miles -- that might cost a few bucks.
>
> > i refuse to "pick up the slack" for someone else's oversight by subjecting
> > my users to an overwhelming amount of illegitimate (unwanted, etc) email.
> > so for the record i am not offering advice however i am providing
> > reasonable justification for my policy.
>
> We have different definitions of "reasonable", then.
>
> Facts that are not in dispute:
>
> -not all dynamically-addressed hosts are sources of spam
Who cares? Neither are all open relays or proxies. That's not the
point.
> -blocking mail based on the client being dynamically addressed blocks
> legitimate mail
Virtually all anti-spam measures block some legitimate email. This is
actually one of the more effective ones, in terms of false positive ratio.
James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor
up@3.am http://3.am
=========================================================================
|