DynIP mail blocking considered harmful (was: Re: My email is rejected by some sites)

From: Karsten M. Self (kmself_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 12/17/03

  • Next message: Karsten M. Self: "Re: My email is rejected by some sites" 
    Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:21:23 -0800
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org

    on Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:09:18PM +0000, Colin Watson (cjwatson@debian.org) wrote:
    > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:34:03PM -0700, Wesley J Landaker wrote:
    > > On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:08 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
    > > > A mailserver can harm _others_.
    > >
    > > I totally agree. Which is why I'm all for only allowing arbitrary
    > > entities to determine who can and can not run a mail server. What we
    > > need is more control, more censorship, more penalties, and less
    > > interference from subvertive terrorists who try to route their mail
    > > around the system. The only reason they have to be doing something like
    > > this would be if they had something to hide. I believe that their
    > > computers should be confiscated and their citizenship revoked.
    >
    > Let's turn this around: why should *I* be forced to accept mail coming
    > from a dynamic IP, when statistically such mail appears much more likely
    > to be spam or viruses? Who are you to tell me that I have to accept such
    > mail?

    Statistically, mail from any arbitrary source is more likely to be spam
    or viruses, than not.

    Statistically, mail from the US is more likely to be spam or viruses
    than not.

    > (If it's not obvious why direct mail from dynamic IP addresses is a
    > favourite tool of spammers, it should be.)

    Spammers will abuse what they can get their hands on.

    My own response is:

      - IP-based discrimination is at best a blunt instrument. Where
        applied against specific netblocks based on known history, it's at
        least actionable. Even whole-country blocking works as a goad to
        encourage countries to start getting serious about securing their
        domain -- or downward-delegating such responsibilities. These days,
        you can expect to find abuse@ and postmaster@ addresses to work for
        many domains in China, Korean, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Vastly
        improved over a couple of years ago.

      - Dynamic IP blocking is per se unaccountable. There's nothing the
        owner of a particular address can do to secure the address which
        impacts the listing. This isn't a listing based on behavior of the
        address. It's a listing based on an independent attribute of the
        address. Some users may be able to get their provider to remove
        IPs from residential/dialup lists, but not all.

      - There are highly specific filters and methods which can effectively
        discriminate between spam and non-spam content. Activity-based
        lists, Bayesian and content-based filters, reputation systems,
        teergrubbing, rate-limiting, and the like.

    > This is *not* censorship, by the way.

    No. It's arbitrary discrimination.

    And for your own personal email configuration, it's your call.

    This isn't acceptable for general-purpose communications, however. And
    I'd suggest you look into common carrier laws as well (I'm somewhat
    familiar with US statutes) as to showing preferences by customer. I see
    little distinction between this practice and the illegal real-estate and
    insurance underwriting practice of redlining neighborhoods.

    > Censorship is when the government represses your speech.

    NB: Not strictly true.

    > > Oh yes, and blacks to the back of the bus, please; just be happy we
    > > let you on at all.
    >
    > It's a weak argument that requires a comparison to racism to be heard,
    > not to mention that it demeans the plight of those affected by racism.

    The similarity is this: a secondary indicator is being used to
    establish an absolute preference for or against a specific activity.
    Despite the known invalidity of this indicator in a large number of
    cases. And the existence of more specific, accurate discriminators.

    Peace. 

    -- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
  Backgrounder on the Caldera/SCO vs. IBM and Linux dispute.
      http://sco.iwethey.org/



    -- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
  • Next message: Karsten M. Self: "Re: My email is rejected by some sites"

    Relevant Pages

    • Gangs and Spam
      ... IBM Says Gangs Now Behind Most Spam ... could create the most diabolical computer viruses. ... In its Global Business Security Index, ...
      (comp.dcom.telecom)
    • Re: strange errors--hijackthis log
      ... When I realized I had viruses I ran AVG and supposedly these were healed. ... No SPAM! ... To add addresses to the filter, you'll have to edit it, click "contains people", click "Address Book" again, and add any new addresses. ... That can be an occasional nuisance, but otherwise you'll be creating many mail rules for SPAM. ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
    • Re: 450 %TCPIP-E-SMTP_NOSUCHUSER, no such user, <domain.name>
      ... >>greylisting has anything but a marginal effect. ... >It was already mentioned that an enormous percentage of spam is being sent ... MyDoom, Bagel, etc. are all spam-forwarding viruses. ... All mail has to go out via our central mailhubs. ...
      (comp.os.vms)
    • REVIEW: "Degunking Your Email, Spam, and Viruses", Jeff Duntemann
      ... "Degunking Your Email, Spam, and Viruses", Jeff Duntemann, 2004, ... The advice is good (although I don't know why he is dissing ...
      (comp.security.misc)
    • REVIEW: "Degunking Your Email, Spam, and Viruses", Jeff Duntemann
      ... "Degunking Your Email, Spam, and Viruses", Jeff Duntemann, 2004, ... The advice is good (although I don't know why he is dissing ...
      (alt.computer.security)