Re: Getting open smtp servers fixed

[Jacques Kirsch <]

Hi,

I'm following this discussion since a few days and I would like you to
explain certain things to me, because I think that most anti-spam
measures I read about either won't work or are even worse than the spam
itself.

>Most spams that I receive do not come directly from the "real account", 
>but are relayed over some open mail relay.
This may be true now but is not mandatory that it will be in the future.
Many ISPs have very easy sign up procedures which allow a spammer
to use always one shot "real accounts". So even if the Internet would
one day be totally relay free, we'll still have spammers.

>It's important to stop spam at the source, but that is a lot easier if
>you know that they won't be able to relay it over some unsuspecting relay 
>host somewhere in the world.
I agree, relaying is a legacy feature which we don't need anymore. But 
on the other hand, migrating to a non-relaying MTA is not always easy,
and not the highest priority of the non-spamming end-users on the Internet.

>(For example: what good is it if I close my SMTP port for SMTP connections
>coming from UUnet customers if they send their junk over your mailer 
>instead?)
What gives you the right to block the mailer of a particular ISP
without distinguishing between its spamming and its non-spamming customers ?
Punishing innocent people is definitely inacceptable ! Taking them as hostages
to make pressure on their ISPs too ! I agree with a cyber-police, not
with a cyber-stasi.

>Open third-party relays make tracing and stopping spam a lot harder, and
>should be closed.  The sooner the better.  The more noise is made about
>open relays, the better.
I don't think that closing all relays is a strong weapon against spammers,
so please, don't set up anti-spam mesures that are worse than spam.

Jacques Kirsch