ac on 23 Oct 2016 12:44:41 -0700

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] spamassassin help: create a rule to score by sender TLD

I agree with you, mostly, so will top post as not to distract from your
reasonable response.

Of course, it is extremely clear that RFC, does not say that you MUST
receive email/traffic from anyone.

I am not saying that anyone MUST do anything.

What I am saying is if someone hold themselves out to be an "expert"
at something (and claims to write books on the topic)

They have to be held to a higher standard.

Either way,  the only point that I am trying to make is that nobody
should be blocking random names.

In fact, the philosophical reasons for blocking names are Evil as it
only serves to increase and strengthen the existing monopolies.

Interesting fact: Over 80% of the entire free world's emails are
relayed by less companies that you have fingers on your one hand. 

And, that is not the worst part of it... The worst part is that if the
present trends continue, there will be only one major esp on the planet.

Again, the salient facts here are that it is not TLD's sending emails,

in fact it technically means NOTHING that 99% of anyone's spam comes
from .whatever

As I can bomb you with spam from .ru (from Florida, US) and then you
react by blocking .ru ?

Senseless and to promote such a silly idea on a Linux list, where
someone asks a real question and needs real answer.

And the simple answer is (and should have been): Never mind what your
operational needs are it is senseless to block a random name.



On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 15:22:22 -0400
Thomas Delrue <> wrote:

> On 10/23/2016 03:04 PM, ac wrote:
> > So, just because I can say, with confidence that 1+1 = 2
> > This does not mean that it proves that 1+4 = 7
> I take offense, 1 + 1 = 3; but then again, my values of 1 are much
> larger than yours.
> > TLD's do not send email.
> > An IP number does.
> I find this to be a statement disturbingly close to "e-mails aren't
> sent from a domain, they are sent from a host" which is factually
> correct but misleading the conversation. It's muddying the waters,
> hiding the forest behind the trees, if you will...
> Some domains just happen to have a larger quantity of produced spam
> (or probability to produce said spam) than others and it's perfectly
> fine if you block those. I think everyone is on board with that part.
> And similarly, some tlds (top level _DOMAINS_, see they're both
> domains, they just are on different levels) contain more spammy hosts
> than others (or have a higher probability of containing said type of
> hosts). And I don't see why it wouldn't be OK blocking those.
> I think what RSK is doing is just going one level up (from 2nd level
> domain to top level domain) and making that decision on the level of
> TLDs as well. And I also think that as recipient, he has the right to
> do so. Please point me too the RFC that contains a "MUST" or "SHALL"
> directive regarding receiving mail from just about anywhere... And
> while you're at it, if you find it, please forward it to
> $SECURITY_COMPANY which makes a mail filtering product.
> > When you stand up and throw your weight behind any sill argument
> > that it is okay to start blocking random names, what does this say
> > about you and what you think and what you support?
> What is the fundamental difference between blocking mails from *.tld
> and mails from *.domain.tld or *.sub.domain.tld? I don't see a big
> difference between these.
> > You say you have been involved in the Internet since inception as
> > well? I only received my first spam in 1986, so I am not asgrey as
> > you are, and I am  not yet senile either.
> Oh, we're waving genitals around now? Is that what we're doing?

Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --
Announcements -
General Discussion  --