Unsuspicious subject header

[j o a r]

On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:13 AM, Andrew Brown wrote:

>> More relevant? My point was that if the mailserver of his ISP is  
>> blocked by Spamhaus, it's probably for a good reason (Spamhause is  
>> not like SpamCop or SORBS), and that there are a lot of reputable,  
>> free and globally available email providers to choose from that  
>> wouldn't have any problem with RBL.
>
> There was a time when the late and unlamented Wanadoo had a virtual  
> monopoly in France and I and many others have been blocked a few  
> times by Spamhaus because we were sending mail via Wanadoo, then  
> notorious as a spammers' nest. I found this rather annoying and was  
> unkind to the people at Spamhaus.


So, "notorius as a spammers' nest" - I think it sounds like Spamhaus  
did their job!
Bad ISPs needs to be punished, or else they'll never improve. It's  
Darwinism in play in our virtual ecology.


>> I agree that any sensible email provider would use SMTP AUTH. Why  
>> it's not universally adopted yet is a mystery to me.
>
> Some reservations, which may or may not be founded, are expressed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMTP-AUTH


It seems that their only reservation is that weak passwords (or any  
passwords, really) can be exploited. That shouldn't come as a  
surprise... I don't really see how that could be considered a  
weakness, compared with the "anyone in the world, or anyone on our  
subnet, can send email via our mail server" policies of old?


j o a r