Josh Miller wrote:
> On 08/11/2011 11:12 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Josh Miller wrote:
>>> In fact, that is one of the single most effective mechanisms used to
>>> combat spam, in my experience and will cut down the amount accepted at
>>> the gateway(s) by up to 95%.
>>
>> I'm not sure who you're answering or agreeing with, but my point is
>> still that 90% of everybody blocked has no clue whatever about what
>> to do about it, and esp. the people with infected systems. A standard
>> channel *to* an ISP for this kind of technical issue - either the
>> ISP notifying the spammer that their machine needs to be cleaned
>> before they'll be allowed back online, or between ISP, would do
<snip>
>> *I* see from that is that people simply drop, or change services, and
>> nothing gets fixed.
>> <snip>
> Also, where I'm from (greater Seattle area even), you don't have much
> choice as far as ISPs go, so changing service providers is not a big
> option.
Yup. That's true most places (competition, *hah*). And all the major ISP's
I've dealt with since the conglomeration in Chicago of ISP's about 11
years ago have been the same: common carrier, but not understanding (as I
think of it) that spam is the same as problem noise on the line.
mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
