Re: Administrative Overheads Arising from UCE

[Corneliu Tanasa <]

Piet Beertema wrote:

> Are you absolutely sure that:
> a) they indeed *did* close their relay?
> b) they notified ORBS about that?
> ORBS only takes a host off the list when they get a
> notification from the host's administrator, and even
> then only when a check shows that the host is indeed
> closed for third-party relaying.

To whom it may concern,

It doesn't look fair to me.  Since they put one (open) relay automatically
on the black list and of course they notify the hostmaster, it will be
fair to check again from time to time if the problem was fixed, unless of
course they have been notified by the hostmaster about this.  I don't
think that this will be too painful for them :->.

The right procedure for me is that IF a complain is received, the owner of
the system to be notified to fix the problem and if after the given grace
period he didn't fix the problem to proceed to black list the open relay.
Don't forget, that if you'd like the other peoples to be polite with you,
first you'll have to ask yourself to be polite with them.

Sometimes, it happens that the hostmaster is not an english speaker, so
maybe he will not understand correctly their message.
However, since there is no complain about some (open) relay, for me it
looks to be an ABUSE putting it on the shit list.  I hate spam, but I
don't want to be one of the peoples that abuses the net.  Also, I don't
think that it is fair to impose a rule, just because.  Aggressive doesn't
have to mean abusive, unless when the word "aggressive" stands for "brute
force".

So, fight and stop the spam, but let's use our brains not our muscles.

Regards,
Corneliu Tanasa