Mitch tries to defend his open relay again (was Re: ORBS (Re: Scanning))

J.D. Falk jdfalk at
Mon May 28 18:21:46 UTC 2001

On 05/28/01, Mitch Halmu <mitch at> wrote: 

> So here's the essence of my reasoning: your approach to combat spamming 
> and your methods of enforcement are wrong. You employ the same argument 
> to restrict relays as used against lawful gun owners by those that want 
> to take them away. You are unwilling to go after the actual spammers, and 
> instead punish network owners for someone else's client deeds. Well, that 
> won't fly in America. There is your legal precedent in spirit.

	The core problem with your reasoning is that you consider any
	site's refusal of your mail to be "enforcement," presumably
	some type of punishment, while most of the folks who deny your
	mail see it as security.  They are protecting themselves from
	the people that YOU have allowed to abuse your mail server.
	They don't know or care who you are, who your users are, or
	what your reasons for allowing that abuse might be.

	I don't expect you to admit to being wrong this late in the
	thread, but please, think about that difference for a while,
	even if you disagree with it.

> I am in favor of explicit federal legislation regulating this aspect of 
> electronic communications. Then we'll all know exactly what's legal and
> what's not, and the playing field becomes level again for all. That would 
> likely put you out of a job, I'm afraid...

	It is the fervent wish of every sane anti-spammer (and yes, I
	know, there's a lot who aren't sane) that we could stop doing
	this work entirely.

	Oh, and you appear to be mistaken about which organizations I
	am currently involved with.  I will endeavor to ensure that
	all relevant web sties are updated.

J.D. Falk                                                SILENCE IS FOO!
<jdfalk at>

More information about the NANOG mailing list