🚀 go-pugleaf

In demon.service bogus address <bogus@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>> I'd rather see my Demon fees pay for a quality service *at Demon*.
>>> In today's Internet, that means rejecting mail from whole systems
>>> whose admins are so clueless as to be part of the spam problem.
>> In your opinion.

> For crying out loud, he just said he was prepared to *pay* for his
> opinion.  What the hell is your problem with letting people get a
> service they find desirable and are willing to front up for?


>> As you already have the power to reject mail on any grounds you like

> As I pointed out in my original post on this, I *don't*.  There is no
> way in Demon's present setup that I can bounce any message from a user
> who sent more than 1000 messages to the Demon server on the same day,
> for example.

And there's no way I'd want to, one of the mailing lists I use
often has ~250 messages/day, and there are a few other Demon
users. Never mind that I all my emails forwarded via my domain.

> You are always asking a third party to do it for you if you have any
> automated rejection at all - i.e. a computer.  The difference is simply
> that I want Demon's computer to do it, not mine.  Which would be far
> more efficient, save me a great deal of aggravation, and be a service
> worth paying for.

And how would you maintain the criteria for rejection, esp.
bearing in mind that at least one of the "relay blockers"
has a habit of putting Demon in when a Demon customer screws
up their configuration and gets hit by the spammers.

>> It is also likely to bounce mail that is not UCE/UBE. That mail is likely
>> to be important. 

> Stamping spam out is more important (to me) than any individual message.
> People who can't send legitimate messages from spammer hosts can always
> find a more responsible provider to send them from.  Or they can phone

Not necessarily.

> me and ask what's going on; if it's *really* important, that's an obvious
> step, isn't it?  I keep a list of blocked sites on my website so people
> can tell in advance if they're going to get through.

Well they can if they know about your particular quirk, have
access to a browser that's allowed to look at random web pages,
and understand their setup.

>> You may think that all mail originating from particular domains (with
>> thousands of customers/users) should be bounced. If so you are free to
>> do it.

> How?  I want to bounce all email routed through UUNET or originated
> from sites in Arizona, for example, and I want to incur *zero* CPU and
> communications overhead in doing so.  Tell me how to do that on Demon's
> present setup.

Don't dial in, you'd be much happier with snail mail (and
associated junkmail).

>> You have the ability to refuse to accept SMPT delivery from the punts

> Not on the criteria I want to apply.

>> or not to download items if you use POP3.

> Not without taking a ludicrous amount of time scanning lists of garbage.

Have a look at Mike's POP3 util. Once you positively filter
mail from trusted addresses (and also be done with some
SMTP servers) there shouldn't be much "garbage" to scan.

> What we are requesting is an *additional level of service* from Demon.
> Nobody's trying to stop you having an unfiltered mailfeed comprising
> 80% spam (like mine at present) if that's what you want.

> ========> Email to "jc" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce. <========

Since you're already rejecting mail to the most likely address
to be garnered from news at a minimal cost in bandwidth/CPU
what's the problem ? Remember to figure in the cost of
designing, writing, testing and implementing this extremely
vague user requirement. And the amount of hassle the helpdesk
will get trying to get people to configure it correctly,
especially when someone ends up bouncing all the mail they
really want.

I've posted to a fair miscellany of text newsgroups with basically
the same username for many years now, I only have to bounce a
handful of emails per day - and about half of them aren't to
the address that appears in my posts (hence auto-bounce), they're
either grabbed from the website, or are old addresses (a few 
one-offs for particular purposes and a couple that have never been
used - unless someone forged it). Of the remainder there are a 
fair few recurrent FROM addresses.

-- 
<URL:http://www.pierrot.co.uk/>                                  Team AMIGA
I could prove God statistically.  - George Gallup