🚀 go-pugleaf

On 9 Nov 2000 00:28:28 +1200, Nick FitzGerald
<nick@virus-l.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>That's nice of you, but 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.  That means using services like the various MAPS lists
>and/or ORBS to reject SMTP connections.  If Demon does that, it saves
>itself and therefore its customers a whole raft of expenses it *and
>we* do not need.

The day Demon start using ORBS will be the day they demonstrate
themselves to be totally without any form of clue.

>At the moment, Demon is a significant contributor to the spam problem.

Demon is a totally insignificant contributor compared with UUNET.

[ snip ]

>Well, right now, Demon is playing the role as if the right thing to do
>is to keep delivering those messages and charging you for the privilege.

They are doing nothing of the kind.

>Maybe Peter Ceresole is happy about that, but I certainly am not.  If
>you want Demon to do something about this, CC your spam complaints to
>abuse@demon... if they are cases of relay spamming and express your
>concern at Demon's continued inaction in its not implementing relay
>blocking.

See above re ORBS.

MAPS isn't quite as bad, but bouncing mail based on its entries on
our corporate incoming mail caused mail from significant customers
to be bounced. Including a major UK financial institution.
The loss in revenue/face from implementing such mail controls
far outweighed the cost of managing SPAM. I fully supported
removal of it forthwith. It now marks such mail with an
X-whatever-it-is header. Everyone's happy.

YMMV - but like many of us have said - we want to manage our
SPAM controls, and not have mail potentially bounced if 3rd
party controls break, as they surely will.

-- 
Mike Pellatt