macto wrote:
I've run into situations where network administrators decide to protect their users by subscribing to these services. When I looked at the FAQ, it pretty much said: you really should be sending email via your own SMTP server. If you don't like that, though. Well, my blood was boiling because my ISPs SMTP server wouldn't accept outgoing email from my prefered email client for weeks on end. Why? Because my email client would time out after 60 seconds and the ISP didn't want to put on additional servers to handle the load. I'm sure that somebody will blame it on my email software, but my email software is quite well designed and quite reliable (it is Pine).
To be honest, I don't understand how an admin installing an spam blocking IP filter would force you to use your own SMTP daemon or server. You're not really clear on that issue. 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.
Has this sort of thing happened to other users? There is certainly anecdotal evidence to that effect.
That's why I asked for numbers. 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 also have to ask yourself if harming innocent bystanders is an ethical way to solve problems. I suppose some people will say yes, but you would still have to draw the line somewhere. (Eg. is it acceptable to risk the life of a bystander to stop a potential murderer? Is it acceptable to risk the life of a bystander to stop somebody from shoplifting a candy bar?) Clearly I view spam as little more than an annoyance, so I view the degree of interference in the delivery of email with great skepticism.
How many innocent bystanders are there? You make it sound like there are scores of poor, computer-illiterate mothers who are desperately trying to get baby pictures to fathers working half way across the globe, but are rejected because of the Evil Spamguards. Respectable ISPs do not appear on the block lists, so how
can there be innocent bystanders?
As for the cost of spam: yes, spammers would have to pay for it to. Or do spammers somehow get free bandwidth?
Less and less. 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. All it takes is a single wake-up call, and hey presto, genuine free bandwith at your disposal.
By escalating the problem to the point where spammers are comprimising third party computers, the anti-spam camp has only added to the cost of the spam problem.
That's like saying there has been an increase in crime because there are more cops out on the street. In other words, a major logical fallacy known as
post hoc, ergo propter hoc. 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. 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.
Then there is the cost of servers for receiving email. Ignoring the most blunt of tactics, which these black lists are, filtering email would increase the CPU load. In other words, the anti-spam camp are increasing their own costs. Finally there is the expense of storage. Yeah, that is a true expense they are incurring on somebody else. Even factoring in redundancy and higher maintainance costs, disk space is dirt cheap.
Your reasoning breaks down as soon as you try to put some numbers into it. First of all: 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. Computers are here for dumb, repetitive work. Humans are here for the smart, creative stuff. Comparing numbers is bread and butter for a computer.
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. Noone asked for spam, it was shoved down our collective email inboxes by unscrupulous sleezebags out to make a quick dollar. I object on high moral grounds to such tactics. People should not be allowed to make money out of me without my explicit consent. Even if disk space is 'dirt cheap'. I should not have to spend a single penny in the first place!
As a personal noted earlier, it is possible to delete spam on the mail server. As far as I know, the techniques are rather crude (you get a couple of the header lines), but they are no more crude than my techniques.
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? I argue that my method is better as you refuse to accept the message before it is even delivered.
