I would certainly like to have something like this. I take great pains to insure that my home box doesn't get used as a relay (open or otherwise). could you send me the postfix and other configs for me to examine? Technomage On Wednesday 02 October 2002 07:39 am, you wrote: > At least the encryption part is already taken care of. > see: > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2246.txt > > I block more spam by rejecting bad HELO and rejecting > on non-existant domains on the RHS of email addresses than > from all the RBL lists I use. > > I am *still* amazed at the sheer number of whacked configurations > for mail servers I see based on rejects in my logs. > > If anyone is interested I can share snippets of my Postfix > configs and samples of the kinds of rejects I get. > > I have been holding off on SpamAssassin until I rebuild my > mail server with NetBSD. > > The whole spam thing is out of control on both sides > and I wish I could think of a sane way to deal with it. > > Anonymous email is still available. > Use Anonymous Remailers and chain. > Mixmaster makes this pretty painless and there are tools like mailcrypt for > Emacs for getting it all going. > There are also Windows clients for the Remailer system so no one gets left > out. The Remailer Ops ( which I was one of back in the day ) have tools in > place to try to prevent spam and other abuses. Sooner or > later spammers will figure out how to circumvent them but it hasn't > happened yet. > > HTH. > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 12:08:33AM -0400, George Toft wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > [snipped] > > > The problem is in the content of the e-mail. This is much like the > > highway. We pay our licensing fee to the state (fee to the ISP), and we > > load up our car and drive (send e-mail). How can you tell that the > > person in the car committed some crime (violated AUP)? You can't, until > > someone else complains. Make the roads toll-roads, like California's > > private highways (require SSL), and all you've done is slow down the > > system. > > [snipped] > > > George > > > > Bill Nash wrote: > > > So of late, more and more has been hitting my inbox. Being the creative > > > and sometimes not nice person I am, I started thinking about ways to > > > legitimately cut down on spam, while making spammers scream in pain. > > > Doing some role reversal, I started > > > thinking about some of what keeps spammers in business: > > > > > > - Difficult to block for various reasons > > > - Anonymity > > > - Open relays > > [snipped] > > > > First off, why aren't mail servers talking to each other over encrypted > > > streams? Everyone is talking about encrypting mail to each other, and > > > exchanging keys, so why not do it with the mail servers themselves as > > > an additional step of security? > > [snipped] > > > > Some interesting ripple effects of this, however. What happens to free > > > email suppliers like yahoo and hotmail? Conventional ISPs have a > > > billing record to tie user accounts to. Hotmail has an IP address, > > > which we all know isn't the most reliable thing. Yes, this kinda > > > removes the anonymity aspect of email, but (oh god, here comes a can of > > > worms) what's the point of anonymous email? I see the Caller ID/Call > > > Blocking argument applying here. > > > > > > Alright, this is getting long, so. Hm. Where's my beer? > > > > > > - billn -- I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My life is my own - No. 6