I find this question interesting (obviously because I'm responding to the list) and have done for decades. Providing a reasonable email solution has become more and more complex while public perception is that email should be, and is, free. I see lots of sides to this debate, some have already been covered by many of you already. * Stuff has to be secure * When stuff becomes insecure it starts to cause headaches for others. * Keeping stuff secure gets harder and harder * Customers want more and more features * Customers should pay for some features/service * Some IT folk are standing up systems to help others reduce costs - again causing headaches for others * Some IT folk have set up expensive systems, funded by data mining and not customers. * Some IT folk simply object to data mining - some folk act on that objection. * There's a lot of 'activism' in the email space and has been for a very long time. * Some of the 'big providers' take some of the heat out of the activism, which only winds up some IT folk even more. * Knowledge and skills with people who can, and will, set up small systems is thinning as demand is growing. * Some want to grow and drive others to rise up their skills. * Some of those "drivers", I think [1], 'attack' learners, not unlike throwing the Apollo crew in a rocket simulator, hoping they will rise up their skills. * With limited revenue, and constant 'driver training', some eventually abandon the game. * Some view that driving training is important if you want to have skin in the game, but quickly forget their time is funded and they're not funding idealism. * Some see their lunch being taken by a rise of good 'free' software. Some react by [1] driving more updates, features and improvements 'help', which just overwhelms small operators. * Some had no choice but to stand up small systems but 'now free offerings' have empowered them to abandon the space. * Some have no thought around the issues, others simply don't care - some days there are just bigger fish. Personally, I identify with some of these issues, and perhaps there's more, but it's the 'fish' question that right now connects with me the most... https://scontent.fhlz1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/118984848_10158758280448988_8560408895957059983_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=VvSoKwD8SqkAX8hIeXE&_nc_ht=scontent.fhlz1-1.fna&oh=69fc9c56a2e95fabe5cb637ba294ab35&oe=5F7F5EB4 In a country of 5 million people, this graphic says we have ~18,000 people waiting for social housing. The idealist in me has turned it's attention, and while I still operate my own mail systems (mainly because I like to able to back it up and add capacity more quickly and I have trust issues with big providers changing the rules mid-stream), I to am leaning closer and closer to calling time... ...anyway, thanks for your eye balls, I'm off to put some paint on a building ready to launch a community housing trust to address that graphic. [1] - Tin Foil Hat time..... D On 2020-09-09 05:25, Barry Shein via NANOG wrote:
This is being portrayed a little too "either/or", that if you get spam etc from $BIGEMAIL you, service provider, block them.
What goes on is multi-layer spam blocking using various tools rather than host/server blocking except as a last resort.
So we'll block/toss/etc a lot of the malmail from $BIGEMAIL w/o generally blocking their servers.
If we get a huge attack we have thresholds at which point we might block them for two hours (whatever) hoping it stops on its own or $BIGMAIL stops it.
But those are pretty high thresholds and obviously can cause problems for our customers in delayed email but so can our mail servers being pounded on. Those $BIGMAIL delivery servers have a lot more computrons than we do.
Aside: What's astounding to me is how little any of this has changed, other than consolidation perhaps -- remember when AOL's servers pounding you with spam could bring you to your knees? I do -- in over 20 years.
-- Don Gould 5 Cargill Place Richmond Christchurch, New Zealand Mobile/Telegram: + 64 21 114 0699 www.bowenvale.co.nz