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

up at up at
Mon May 28 19:21:21 UTC 2001

On Mon, 28 May 2001, J.D. Falk wrote:

> 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 

This is nonsense...most of us "go after the actual spammers" as best as we
can and the law permits us.  If you supply plastic explosives to
terrorists with no checks, you may not be directly responsible for their
actions, but you are certainly part of the problem.  If you have an open
relay, you are a big part of the spam problem, whether you like it or not.

> > instead punish network owners for someone else's client deeds. Well, that 
> > won't fly in America. There is your legal precedent in spirit.

What does "america" have to do with it?  Open relays are all over the
place, and a big PITA.  Refusing your mail is *my* right, as owner of my
network; and also my responsibility.  Of course it is your "right" to have
an open relay if you like, just don't expect everyone else to accept
email from it.

> 	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 would argue that it's both "enforcement" and security.  I know MAPS has
to argue otherwise in court, but let's face it, incentive is alot of what
it's about.

James Smallacombe		      PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor
up at	

More information about the NANOG mailing list