Re: SORBS on autopilot?

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

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?

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.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

P.S. Just to be clear, I don't like SORBS.  I don't use it either.  And I prefer the "make them stop", to the point 
that I would simply not e-mail someone if I were listed and they used SORBS.  (But I'm not listed, so it's easy for me 
to say.)