In <Pine.LNX.4.21.0001162044160.24192-100000@james.kalifornia.com> Blu3Viper (david@killerlabs.com) wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>> I'm just disappointed that if you speak for VA then VA's response to people
>> trying to stop spam is two fingers and an attempt to blame them for other
>> peoples problems.
> You missed my qualifier. I asked that ORBS not be used while they practice
> their policy of global blacklisting. I fully support ORBS in it's efforts
> to stop spam by affecting the broken systems. Any servers on Above.net
> address space that are open should be listed. The other hundreds of
> thousands should remain fully free.
It's not possible since ABOVE.NET choose to block ORBS. If systems @ ABOVE.NET
are blacklisted it's ABOVE.NET fault, not ORBS fault.
> Especially when the ones I touch are listed in the database as anti-spam
> compliant.
Hmm. Since that server is blocked spammer can mark it as "anti-spam compliant"
as well. ORBS bot can not check it.
> I draw the line when they shoot the whole city just to stop a dozen people.
Not dozen peoples. Just city's head. And they DO NOT SHOOT them. They just
refuse to speak with them till policy is not changed. It's what US goverment
is doing all the time: "we will not speak with you till you'll do this and
that". If it's Ok for US goverment why it's not Ok for ORBS ?
> I don't speak as a rep from VA. Nor is this a paltry face for spam. In my
> view, VA's position on spam is great. Nobody likes spam. I'm not blaming
> anyone for other people's problems. I'm saying ORBS is practicing a group
> prejudice.
Just like US goverment (and most other goverments out there :-)...
> Not everyone in the world has the freedom to choose a different provider.
They can blame existing one. If they will complaing loud enough provider can
change his mind. They can ask someone to work as ORBS-allowed relay for him
(if my friend will ask me to work as relay I'll give him key and allow SMTP
over SSL for him so he'll be able to send mail even if his provider is blocked
by ORBS).
> That anti-spam abiding citizen shouldn't have to face the blacklist because
> his provider has blocked ORBS from testing.
Why so ? They are the ones who support provider by his money. They are the ones
who can ask him to change his mind. ORBS can not do this. But ORBS CAN blacklist
that provider and they done that.
> My mail server XYZ is anti-spam compliant and listed as such in the ORBS
> database, why then is it being blacklisted?
If it's can not be checked by ORBS bot than it's Ok: ORBS can not check if
someone who marked it as "anti-spam compliant" is not spammer and can not check
itself. If not, then it's definiteally something wrong.
> linux-kernel isn't about stereotype programming, we go through pains to make
> sure the kernel operates for as many types as possible. We aren't
> intentionally refusing to write support simply because of bias. We can't
> [currently] provide industrial crypto in the mainstream kernel in US
> locations, but there are patches on the outside of the US that people can
> get.
> Is generic blacklisting right?
If there are no choice then yes.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:14 EST