I also fail to understand what your email client has to do with said filters---the communication problem you mentioned is in an entirely different category.
(a) the ISPs SMTP server for outgoing mail is broken
(b) the antispam camp dictates that SMTP must be done by ISP's server
(c) the receiving ISP follows the antispam camp's policy
Clear?
Everyone knows a friend of a friend who supposedly got burned by some evil overactive Ueberadmin. While these stories are great fun to listen to, they are statistically meaningless.
You mean BOFH stories don't count as evidence? ;-)
To my knowledge, no studies have been done on abuse by or abuse of administrators, even though there is anecdotal evidence from both camps. While I really should be able to present numbers to back my assertions, I will cop out by making a couple of comments:
Further research is required, seeming as the sysadmin/user relationship is becoming much more important in our world.
Yet anecdotal evidence can point to a problem, even though it cannot objectively comment on the scale of the problem. Boy, a few of my (scientist) friends would rake me over the coals for that comment. In fact, I think I will rake myself over the coals over that comment. ;-)
The need for hard numbers implies that you are measuring the magnitude of the problem by how frequently it occurs, rather than by the impact upon individuals. Both are valid perspectives.
You make it sound like there are scores of poor, computer-illiterate mothers ...
I though that I was quite clear that I was having trouble sending email, unless it was in an officially sanctioned manner, and that I have heard anecdotal evidence of other people having similar problems.
Respectable ISPs do not appear on the block lists, so how can there be innocent bystanders?
Many respectable people were blacklisted by McCarthy. Getting back to reality: the blacklist in question said that individuals were not permitted to use their own SMTP server (ie. they must use their ISPs), which is effectively blacklisting everyone below the level of corporate "citizen". Second, I view ISPs as service providers rather than content providers. In other words, ISPs are only "respectable" or "unrespectable" to the degree that they offer quality service and uphold the law. Nobody would think of blaming the cable company for the (lack of) quality of commercials. Nobody would think of blaming the phone company for telemarketers. Yet, somehow, people blame the ISP for spammers.
It is a known fact that computers are now turned into spam zombies because computer illiterates did not take the necessary precautions to secure their systems.
I'm going to ignore the comment about "computer illiterates" and "necessary precautions," and suggest that spammers are doing something illegal (or at least highly immoral) when they break into computer systems and turn then into spam zombies. Then again, I would like to reiterate that they are doing this because legal means of spamming people are being cut off. That doesn't mean that I approve of the spammer's actions, but it does mean that I will spread some blame to antispammers for escalating the problem rather that solving the problem.
All it takes is a single wake-up call, and hey presto, genuine free bandwith at your disposal.
Not necessarily. In the case of an open relay you are using the bandwidth of the spammer and the victim. In effect, you are distributing the cost and doubling it. (I am making an assumption here: that the content of each spam is unique. I'm sure that there are examples which support this, and examples which don't.)
That's like saying there has been an increase in crime because there are more cops out on the street.
U.S. cities have several times as many cops per capita than Canadian cities, even though the crime rates are similar or higher in the U.S. (depending upon what you are looking at). In this case I will fudge some numbers together:
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm (crime rates)
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/021220/d021220c.htm (police per capita)
In other words, a major logical fallacy known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
So one minute you are arguing that you need statistics to back a claim, then you are saying correlations are meaningless? I cannot win, now can I?
The only reasons spammers are resorting to these vile tactics is because it is a worthwhile enterprise to do so: far less bandwidth requirements, less chances of being tracked down, and almost no costs.
The first case is not necessarily true for open relays. The chance of being tracked down may be lower, but you can still track down the spammer because a product is being offered. You simply follow the money trail. Finally, almost no costs is a relative term. A company which spams me because I am a customer has similar costs to those of a scum bag spammer.
And because most ISPs now have stringent policies in place to deal with blood suckers who are still stupid enough to spam from easily tracable user accounts.
Odd how that does not stop companies from spamming their customers, isn't it? As far as most companies are concerned, once they have your email address you are open game. Some of them will sell it to spam houses, or some of them will use it to spam you directly. So what's the difference? I would say none.
why is filtering at IP-level, before you accept the bulk of the message, the 'most blunt of tactics'? Methinks it is a rather elegant solution, far better than offloading the burden to the user who has to read and delete messages by hand
Because the ISP is frequently doing it without the knowledge, let alone permission, of the user. As for the word 'blunt', I was refering to the tactics rather than the outcome. I would be like denying a person entry into a building because they came from the wrong end of town. This type of blanket discrimination may be acceptable where you come from, but it isn't where I'm from (though it still does happen).
Computers are here for dumb, repetitive work. Humans are here for the smart, creative stuff.
Bull poop. Filtering email requires a degree of intelligence, unless you are using the most blunt of methods (see above). Similarly, computers do work which was once the domain of human intelligence. Consider the nature of solving mathematical problems.
Second, you have cause and effect backwards. People not desiring to receive spam are forced to spend money or time to get rid of it.
People who don't want to see advertisments in newspapers or magazines would have to go to considerable expense to remove them. There is a considerable expense to disposing of paper junk mail (but you probably don't notice it because it is buried in taxes as well as other garbage). A considerable amount of the viewer's or listener's time is wasted by commercials in television or radio. So why is the cost of spam so much less acceptable than the cost of other forms of advertising?
Noone asked for spam, it was shoved down our collective email inboxes by unscrupulous sleezebags out to make a quick dollar.
I could say the same for any form of advertising.
I object on high moral grounds to such tactics.
I would agree with you on the bits about spammers comprimising systems. I simply said that the responsibility should be shared. I also object on high moral grounds (higher in my opinion, but I can see many people who beg to differ), to the tactics used by antispammers.
People should not be allowed to make money out of me without my explicit consent.
Do you have a website? Guess what, search engines are indexing your content to make money. The robots.txt file is simply an opt out. Have you ever used usenet? Guess what, Google (and previously Deja) was embedding copywritten material into advertising to make money. Those are people who are making money out of you.
Unless you are arguing that spammers sell servers and bandwidth, they are only costing you money -- not making money off of you.
What is the difference between these methods and using a table generated by an organisation which dedicates all its time to generate lists of questionable IP-addresses you do not want to receive messages from?
Because the organisation is making the decisions for you? Consider how much people would argue against this if the government made the list (in fact, there was a comment to that effect earlier). If some private enterprise makes the decision, it is suddenly acceptable.
You will also note that I was most strongly objecting to the ISP or network admin imposing those decisions upon the user. If a user does it to themself, I can (grudgingly) accept it.
I argue that my method is better as you refuse to accept the message before it is even delivered.
And I argue that descriminating by IP address is really no different than discriminating base upon where a person lives, or based upon their level of income, or whatever other factors are rolled into which ISP you choose.
