[linux-elitists] AOL says goodbye to AT&T/Comcast and residential mail spools

Martin Pool mbp@samba.org
Sun Apr 13 17:41:46 PDT 2003

On 11 Apr 2003, mike@jurney.org wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> > You should anyway; a common, and effective, antispam measure is blocking
> > all connections from identified dynamic IP ranges.  AOL is jumping on a
> > very long bandwagon.
> So refusing to accept from a source of provably valid email because some
> of it is likely to be spam is somehow acceptable?


> At what ratio of good mail to bad mail does it tip the balance from
> "liberal in what you accept" to "feck 'em"?

Thousands of observed Korean spams, zero observed blocked non-spams.
That's good enough for me.  The cost (financial and otherwise)  of
accepting the spams is almost certainly greater than the cost of
blocking a few false positives from people who look and sound like
spammers, but are not.

> It's ridiculous that _anyone_ is choosing to deal with the spam problem by
> refusing service to people who _might_ be sending spam.


I can understand that you might disagree, but it seems like a
reasonable choice.

Perhaps AOL's implementation is bad, but in general blocking
connections from "people who ought to be using a smarthost but are
not" seems like a decent heuristic.


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list