rmeyer at mhsc.com
Wed May 23 21:35:07 UTC 2001
I'm getting seriously confused here. I thought that the open-relay issue was
irelevent to MAPS. That MAPS only black-holed confirmed SPAM sites (a little
tougher, but more granular, charter). Further, that it was ORBS that listed
open-relay sites specifically, whether they were involved in a spam or not
(unacceptable due to punishing potential anti-spammers for proliferating
spam that never saw their systems). To me, these are two entirely different
charters. If MAPS starts to look like ORBS then I will stop using MAPS.
Can someone please clarify?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sharp [mailto:rsharp at appliedtheory.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 1:04 PM
> To: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Stealth Blocking
> I would like to make the point that I do run two mail servers
> and both a maps approved.
> Please don't tell me I don't know how to run a mail server.
> Again I am not discussing your
> ability , please don't poke fun at me. In fact I had some
> trouble with spam on one of them
> because someone was signing up a list I use for the owl
> networks mailing list. I infact
> installed MAPS to see if it helped the problem. It did not
> because the user didn't run an
> open relay site but rather a no confirmation email list.
> Would I be correct to assume they
> should be in the MAPS list too? As you can see sometime
> spam/annoying emails is not always
> sent throught an open relay but sometimes it's a problem with
> mailing lists..... What should
> maps do, start adding sites that act like this?
> I am just making the point that if MAPS wasn't run by one
> person with total control maybe
> some of us "retards who don't know what we are doing" would
> be a bit more will to support the
> Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 May 2001 14:36:15 EDT, Robert Sharp said:
> > > And if you use the MAPS list by your choice you are most
> definetly filtering out email
> > > or traffic for people who are legitimate. I know I have
> been filtered before. MAPS is
> > > using a very large hammer to kill a not so large bug.
> > Hmm.. you won't configure it correctly. RFC2505 is "Best
> Current Practice".
> > You get filtered because you won't configure it correctly.
> > You say you've been filtered *before* because you won't
> configure it correctly.
> > Yes, we *admit* we're using a large hammer. Bouncing your
> e-mail didn't
> > get your attention. Maybe irate users will get your
> attention. But I
> > am doubting it.
> > --
> > Valdis Kletnieks
> > Operating Systems Analyst
> > Virginia Tech
> > Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
More information about the NANOG