Re: Current status?
- From: johnwallace4@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 11:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 4, 6:37 pm, billg...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
In article <mpcBTO6SI...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
koeh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bob Koehler) writes:
In article <gLRvk.272770$TT4.161515@attbi_s22>, "John E. Malmberg" <wb8...@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
If it is not supposed to send e-mail, and it attempts to, don't you
think someone should find out why?
We've had a lot of problems deploying COTS products that send
out notifications via email, from systems that the security folks
think shouldn't be "mail servers".
So "supposed to" is in the eye of the beholder.
Not really. Those particular devices should be sending their email to
the real mailserver which should be the only one communicating with mail
servers in the the outside world. If network/system managers, in particular
ISP's, followed this rule 99% of SPAM cold be dealt with in ver short order.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Enforcing "email from recognised SMTP servers only" would indeed get
rid of much spam instantly, and is a tactic already used by some folks
to reject *incoming* mail, but it would also break hundreds of little
convenience Windows apps that have their own mailsenders built in, and
inconvenience millions of their users. Log watchers, webcam watchers,
etc, anything which sends notification by email when something
"interesting" happens, using its own built-in mail server; they would
all need their user/installer to actually know their ISP's SMTP server
address so they could do the setup properly. How many PC users
actually know or care much about that kind of thing?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Current status?
- From: Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
- Re: Current status?
- From: Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
- Re: Current status?
- From: Bill Gunshannon
- Re: Current status?
- References:
- Re: [RBL] Current status?
- From: John E. Malmberg
- Re: [RBL] Current status?
- From: John E. Malmberg
- Re: [RBL] Current status?
- From: Bob Koehler
- Re: [RBL] Current status?
- From: Bill Gunshannon
- Re: [RBL] Current status?
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Carly speeks at convetion
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Carly speeks at convetion
- Previous by thread: Re: [RBL] Current status?
- Next by thread: Re: Current status?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|