Re: SORBS on autopilot?

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 01/12/2010 11:34 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> > On 01/12/2010 10:48 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:51:47AM -0500, Jed Smith wrote:
> > > > On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> > > > The vibe I got from a number of administrators I talked to about it was "why
> > > > would a standards document assume an IPv4/IPv6 unicast address is a residential
> > > > customer with a modem, forcing those with allocations to prove that they are
> > > > not residentially allocated rather than the other way around?"
> > >
> > > Because a default allow policy doesn't work in today's environment.
> > >
> > > Blocking generic and residential addresses is the single most effective
> > > thing we've ever done to reduce spam.
> >
> > Really? You mean that if you stopped doing this you'd have trillions,
> > or quadrillions of spams per day instead now? I'm skeptical.
>
> 1) Is this really the place to talk about SORBS?

I'm not the one who brought up SORBS. My post didn't even have anything to
do with SORBS.

> 2) Your reply to Dave's post is not useful.  It's not even useful if you consider it pure hyperbole for effect.  There are many 
> ways to reduce spam, the "single most effective" does not stop even 50%.
>
> 3) Should people really argue over what other people do with their own machines?  You don't like SORBS, don't use it.  
> Someone you need to talk to likes SORBS, make them stop, or conform.  Might as well argue over a website using HTTPS when you 
> don't like encryption.

Who said anything about SORBS? Not me. Sorry. My post had to do with whether
rDNS is doing much of anything in this day and age. I'm dubious. Spammers don't
seem to have any impediment because on it.

Mike