You've obviously never pitted Slashdot against a cheap VPS. Even serving static files, the traffic of a good slashdotting will bring a lightweight server to its knees, and this is a story related to SSH.

No, but I did warn them about World War III starting in 1997, just before some asshole turned on his cell phone jammer and cut me off.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

I very much doubt your mail client is configured to send mail directly. It almost certainly has an SMTP relay configured for sending mail. Nearly all MUAs lack the option to send directly -- they require that a relay be configured.

"This" in my statement above specifically referring to having the appropriate PTR records set up, as the context in the following (unquoted) sentence indicates. No part of my post supports any funky use of MX records or sending volume limits.

Context -- it changes things.

End-users should not be using SMTP to communicate directly with recipient servers, and almost none do. Nearly all ISPs provide authenticating SMTP relays for their subscribers, and end-users should be using those ISP-provided SMTP servers or some other mail provider's SMTP servers to relay their mail. If they have some legitimate reason to send mail directly (such as operating their own server), then requiring them to ask their ISP for a port 25 blocking exemption is perfectly reasonable.

Legitimate large-volume senders have already dealt with this. I haven't encountered any legitimate large-volume senders in recent history that do not have valid PTR records for all of their outbound relays.

Blocking servers without a valid RDNS record may not be part of any proper standard, but it is slowly becoming a de facto standard.

There are plenty of rules that could be set up to prevent rogue systems from sending spam, but the problem is with getting network operators and individual server administrators on board. Trying to get all network operators (or ISPs) around the world doing something is like herding cats. Trying to get all individual server administrators to do something is like herding millions of catnip-infused cats.

Your thought about MX records is not quite right. There is a difference between servers that recieve mail (which should be pointed to by MX records) and servers that send mail (which should have valid PTR records in reverse DNS for their IP). While a single server may perform both duties, that is not by any means guaranteed. One action that would block a large number of infected systems from delivering their spam would be receiving mail servers blocking all mail from senders that do not have a valid RDNS record. This is the correct version of your proposal, and some major providers already do this. An even greater benefit could be achieved if all ISPs were to block outbound traffic headed for TCP port 25 by default, requiring subscribers to "opt-in" to initiate port 25 traffic. Some ISPs already do this, but far too many do not. Yet another good measure would be for recipients to block mail from servers that fail to identify themselves with a valid fully-qualified domain name in their HELO message and require that domain to resolve by DNS. Like the RDNS solution, this would require all legitimate mail server operators to set their sending servers up properly. As more receiving operators start blocking non-compliant mail servers, we may slowly push more sending server operators to do things right, but it is a long, slow process when users demand that every legitimate message get through.

You're right, but when Congress gives power and fails to exercise control, it is responsible for what is done with that power.

Well played, sir.

I don't think that needs to be said here - we're all well aware of it.

I should add that the Senator was free to do what Congress tells us all we should do: just accept the damned pat-down and get on the damned plane.

What we have here is not a Senator that was intercepted intentionally to keep him from his duties. We have a Senator that refused to comply with the law, as passed by Congress, that currently regulates air travel. He was not arrested, as the law defines it. This situation was created by a combination of past acts of Congress and the Senator's own shortsightedness. The particular clause of the Constitution that you refer to is not intended to protect members of Congress from either of those things.

I'm not arguing against the law as it is written. I fully realize its purpose. The Senator was not arrested, and it was his responsibility to secure passage back to Washington in order to be present for the session. If he was not prepared to comply with the requirements for flying on a commercial aircraft, then he should have made plans to get there by some other way, be it by private aircraft, car, Segway or whatever other method fit his needs.

You're each partly right. It is certainly a privilege to fly on a plane that someone else owns. The Senator could have avoided this debacle with a private plane.

No back-peddling... to put it in a single phrase: "they have been eroded, but not quite that far." We are in agreement.

Well, they aren't going to make the flight go "boom", but they certainly are a threat. These are the people that damn near passed SOPA and PIPA, after all.