Are we looking for solutions, or just ranting? (was Re: Comcast and SORBS)

[Bob George]

Derek Martin wrote:

>  [...] As we have seen, this apparently doesn't solve the problem.

Then I'm confused as to what the problem IS. Rich's original post 
referred to SORBS tagging of dynamic IPs. I posted info from the SORBS 
FAQ that clearly states what actions are required to have a range of 
dynamic addresses removed from SORBS, namely having the party 
responsible for those addresses contact them and request de-listing (if 
indeed they didn't request listing initially.)

Even if your ISP allows outbound SMTP (Rich's does I believe), others 
may well blacklist such ranges. Like it or not, that's how it is. Any 
solution will have to contend with this reality at some level.

>  [..] It shouldn't be. E-mail is becoming just as important a means
>  of communication as the telephone; the ISP should not have the right
>  to block the sender just because they don't like their net address
>  block, just as phone companies can't block incoming calls from their
>  competitors (or for any reason, AFAIK).

But of course an individual can refuse calls from whoever they like. And 
presumably a business can refuse inbound calls. So the "taint" of using 
a dynamic address may still be a problem, and not one we can control. 
Any solution will also have to contend with this reality at some level.

>  [...] If I am running my own server, I can opportunistically encrypt
>  the SMTP session (when the peer supports it) so that my ISP can not
>  see the contents of my communications.

Hit-or-miss at best, as you noted. So the ability to run an SMTP server 
doesn't really guarantee anything at this level.

>  Forcing me to use their servers takes that option away; they can
>  always see the contents, unless I use PGP. I do use PGP whenever
>  possible, but for most recipients they just can't be bothered, even
>  if they are concerned about their privacy.

That's a different issue than SORBS and general tagging of dynamic-IP 
sourced messages as possible spam, agreed?

>  [...] Percentagewise, I'm sure that's true, but that doesn't mean it
>  should be impossible.

Again, many DO seem to be running their own servers from dynamic IP 
addresses. The actual problem Rich cited is that others -- whether 
fairly or not -- have deemed it a likely source of spam. Protestations 
of unfairness are likely to fall on deaf ears. That doesn't mean that 
there is nothing that can be done, but of course, it may cost or not be 
particularly "convenient" to do so.

>  You don't see these issues as important; I do. You place more
>  importance on protecting yourself from spam than on protecting your
>  freedom, which I find strange.

If find it strange that the ability to send unprotected SMTP is seen as 
any great protection of one's freedom, and that energy is expended 
arguing that it is. My privacy and freedom of association will be 
protected by using tools suited to that task, irregardless of the path 
my message flow.

>  Therefore we can not agree.

This thread seems to have become a rant-fest rather than any effort to 
coordinate a solution to this, and related problems. If that's the 
intent, fine. Venting is great fun. But please, let's not pat ourselves 
on the back for fighting the noble fight of protecting freedom and the like.

- Bob