Postfix issue

[Jay Chandler]

David Southwell wrote:
> I pay for my connection to receive.. and pay for my connection to send. Some people just want to not paly their part in absorbing the risks that go with participation. It is up to us to defend our systems. 
>
>   
Your server, your rules.  You can whitelist or blacklist anyone you 
choose.  The downside is that so can everybody else; your lack of 
non-generic rDNS means that mail to my server (alcatraz.sequestered.net) 
will bounce if not smarthosted through somewhere that has a static IP 
and properly configured DNS.  This was deemed an acceptable threshold on 
my box when I was selecting anti-spam mechanisms.  If you're that 
concerned about privacy, use GPG/PGP and  request a key exchange.

What's more is that I've applied that same metric at several employers, 
ranging from mid-sized businesses to universities.  My previous (and 
current!) employers were familiar with all sides of the argument and 
ultimately decided to reject mail from dynamic address pools to combat 
spam.  Complaining about it doesn't do much good, since (as previously 
stated) their server, their rules.
> To classify a whole load of users, the majority of whom are genuine, as 
> invalid users is degrading and discriminatory.
>
>   
The majority of users smarthost their mail.  If you want to retain 
control, drop the $15 a month on a VPS somewhere with a static IP, 
configure DNS correctly, and be your own smarthost; I did this for a 
while before I upgraded to a static IP at home. 
> My point of viwew -- you are entitled to yours but IMHO not to enforce it!!
>   
Ah, but on my server I can enforce whatever makes the most sense for my 
userbase; my responsibility is to them, not to you.

-- 
Jay Chandler / KB1JWQ
Living Legend / Systems Exorcist
Today's Excuse: multicasts on broken packets