Comment Re:Monkeys.com (Score 1) 677
One customer becomes an involuntary helper of a spammer and all other customers are supposed to find external mail relays?
Not necessarally. One customer becomes an involuntary helper of a spammer, and the ISP should step in to mitigate the damage that customer causes. That's good network administration. That's common sense. That kind of action usually keeps ISPs off of blocklists.
And it's the ISPs fault that the customer didn't secure his system properly, so he must pay for all this?
If the ISP is either unwilling or unable to control their network and get rid of all the spammers or trojaned boxes, then yes, the ISP is 100% responsible. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Collateral damage is about as annoying as spam.
Collateral damage sucks. Don't get me wrong there. The problem here is that nobody seems to want to blame the right people. Everyone wants to blame the blocklists because they're a stationary target. Nobody wants to blame the spammers or the ISPs that support/ignore them. If ISPs were more proactive in eliminating spam from their networks, there would be no need for blocklists, ergo no collateral damage.
I'd even say that it is worse, because - unlike spam - there is very little you can do about it yourself, sometimes you don't even notice that you're blacklisted before important mail is lost.
There is no such thing as "very important mail". By design, e-mail is not reliable. Hell, by design the whole damn Internet is unreliable. Anyone who relies on e-mail as a sole method of contact is a fool. Anyone who uses e-mail and expects 100% delivery success is a fool. E-mail should be used to SUPLEMENT existing communications methods, not replace them. If more people understood this, then this wouldn't even be an issue.
Not necessarally. One customer becomes an involuntary helper of a spammer, and the ISP should step in to mitigate the damage that customer causes. That's good network administration. That's common sense. That kind of action usually keeps ISPs off of blocklists.
And it's the ISPs fault that the customer didn't secure his system properly, so he must pay for all this?
If the ISP is either unwilling or unable to control their network and get rid of all the spammers or trojaned boxes, then yes, the ISP is 100% responsible. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Collateral damage is about as annoying as spam.
Collateral damage sucks. Don't get me wrong there. The problem here is that nobody seems to want to blame the right people. Everyone wants to blame the blocklists because they're a stationary target. Nobody wants to blame the spammers or the ISPs that support/ignore them. If ISPs were more proactive in eliminating spam from their networks, there would be no need for blocklists, ergo no collateral damage.
I'd even say that it is worse, because - unlike spam - there is very little you can do about it yourself, sometimes you don't even notice that you're blacklisted before important mail is lost.
There is no such thing as "very important mail". By design, e-mail is not reliable. Hell, by design the whole damn Internet is unreliable. Anyone who relies on e-mail as a sole method of contact is a fool. Anyone who uses e-mail and expects 100% delivery success is a fool. E-mail should be used to SUPLEMENT existing communications methods, not replace them. If more people understood this, then this wouldn't even be an issue.
