From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: UDP/DNS in Emacs Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 02:50:08 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200203311640.g2VGecR10784@aztec.santafe.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017823172 25744 127.0.0.1 (3 Apr 2002 08:39:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 08:39:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16sgIm-0006h7-00 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 10:39:32 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16sgUo-0003RL-00 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 10:51:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16sgIX-0004MP-00; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 03:39:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16sfWy-00066k-00; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 02:50:08 -0500 Original-To: abraham@dina.kvl.dk In-Reply-To: (message from Per Abrahamsen on Tue, 02 Apr 2002 14:34:51 +0200) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:2338 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:2338 > From: Per Abrahamsen > Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 14:34:51 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > My point is that basing this on the sender's ISP is a bad idea, one > > that unduly discriminates people who don't have much choice but to use > > whatever ISPs are available to them. > > It is their problem. Why should I suffer for it? Because it will become your problem when relevant mail is automatically junked based on the domain from which it comes. > If Gnus can improve my blacklist rules, I will have to spend less time > skimming the misc.misc folder, and junk less messages by accident. If I understand your habits, it also means that some non-junk mail will be read once a month instead of once a day. It strikes me that a second or two it takes to recognize spam and press that DELETE button is a much more efficient means (both time-wise and as far as danger of junking real email is considered) of dealing with mail than your convoluted procedure. IMHO, of course. > I do not see why "fairness" to people who believe they have no other > choise than using an incompetent ISP should force me to lose relevant > mail. I think your assumption about availablility of good ISPs needs some reality check. How well are you familiar with the situation outside Western Europe and North America? For that matter, it's possible that your mail handling needs to be revised, and that some different procedure will run less risk of junking relevant mail even without draconian measures. > ORBS is dead, and was in any case a database of current open relays. > To get out of the database, all you had to close it. I know all about this; do you? How many times, if at all, did you need or try to deal with these problems? The number of times I removed my ISP from the data base is greater than the number of words in this message. It doesn't help: a few days after that, it's in the data base again. > Open relayes was > (and probably still is) the most efficient way for spammers to > propagate their messages, and blocking based on open relays was (and > probably still is) the most efficient way to block spam. As usual, this is a question of striking the fine balance of stopping the guilty without unduly punishing the innocent. It might be worth remembering that spam is defined based on its content, not on the server from which it comes.