Hello Jack , On Fri, 30 May 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote: <snip>
White listing is NOT what was being discussed . Tho is can be adventagous in the right circumstances . <snip> And neither was Static addressing . Filtering was being discussed based on some unknown (to me probably others as well) methodology . Twyl , JimL
White listing comes with any blacklist. The blacklists in particular being discussed were the @dynamics, like the PDL and dynablock at easynet. Both lists quite clearly state how they build their lists and what they are designed to block (dynablock only takes out dialup, and PDL takes out all dynamic addressing). Query , How is it determined that the address in question is dynamic or not ? Who/how/what makes that determination ? This is the core of my concerns .
Given the number of insecure client systems on dynamic addressing (proxy servers, trojans, etc), accepting email from dynamic addresses is becoming inherently more dangerous. If smarthosts can't be used from those addresses, then special whitelisting can be done. Highly agreed . But sure am hoping some better solutions are being developed .
Of course, the person implementing email blocks of any type, especially public blacklists, must take some ammount of responsibility in maintaining legitimate email communications as dictated by users. YES ! Without this there is no check &/or balance to the procedure/s in use . Twyl , JimL
-- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network Engineer | P.O. Box 854 | Give me Linux | | babydr@baby-dragons.com | Coudersport PA 16915 | only on AXP | +------------------------------------------------------------------+