Marco Moock writes:
> True, but there are ISPs that cancel the contracts with customers who
> operate such bots or have hacked systems and are not willing to shut
> them down.

Shutting down the bots, cancelling contracts, and blacklisting only
happen after a slug of spam and phishing messages have been sent.
--
John Hasler
john@sugarbit.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

On 2023-09-14, bad sector <forgetski@INVALID.net> wrote:

> For argument's sake let's presume that MY hosted server was the direct
> source of spam as a result of a hack. With a dedicated IP and a yard
> long password that is not stored anywhere near my end I don't see that
> as possible but as I said my techno-tunnel does becomes a dead-end at
> some point. Is it MY driving permit that should be suspended if someone
> steals my car (hacks my server) and crashes a storefront with it?

You might get sued for the damage done to the store using your car,
after all if you had secured your car sufficiently this would not have
happened. And probably investigated to see if you were personally
involved other than (possibly unwittingly) providing the vehicle.

> Someone who takes or facilitates damaging blanket action against me and
> my domain and others with their domains without cause and evidence
> better be prepared for defense (in a normal environment).

They said your that you're in a bad neighbourhood (ASN), there was no
attack on you personally.

--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні

On 2023-09-15, bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
> On 9/15/23 08:47, John Hasler wrote:
>> bad sector wrote:
>>> Anyone know a short list of alternative, reasonably
>>> priced hosting ISP's that let me operate a simple
>>> web site and mail server but who cater to no spammer
>>> and thus assure my email address against the BL racket?
>>
>> I use pobox.com for my email. They seem to do a pretty good job. My
>> web site and domains are with Gandi. They also offer email but I've not
>> used it.
>
> Thanks. The email providers pissed me off early in the game
> by charging $2.50/month extra for every forwarding address.
> Part of my DIY spam defense evolved to use frequent and
> dedicated addresses (to the tune of hundreds every year) so
> anyone who gets a hold of one and slides into his/her spam
> database gets nowhwere fast even before hitting my LOCAL
> filters.

You can deliver email from your domain through a different server
than the one you use as MX, you can have a third party to run your
delivery and continue to host your own MX and mailboxes. Depending on
how much you send you amy even be able to get this service for free.

--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні

On 9/19/23 03:57, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2023-09-14, bad sector <forgetski@INVALID.net> wrote:
>
>> For argument's sake let's presume that MY hosted server was the direct
>> source of spam as a result of a hack. With a dedicated IP and a yard
>> long password that is not stored anywhere near my end I don't see that
>> as possible but as I said my techno-tunnel does becomes a dead-end at
>> some point. Is it MY driving permit that should be suspended if someone
>> steals my car (hacks my server) and crashes a storefront with it?
>
> You might get sued for the damage done to the store using your car,
> after all if you had secured your car sufficiently this would not have
> happened. And probably investigated to see if you were personally
> involved other than (possibly unwittingly) providing the vehicle.
>
>> Someone who takes or facilitates damaging blanket action against me and
>> my domain and others with their domains without cause and evidence
>> better be prepared for defense (in a normal environment).
>
> They said your that you're in a bad neighbourhood (ASN), there was no
> attack on you personally.

Sounds like Gen. Lemay about Hiroshima & Dresden. I blacklisted the
merchant as soon as I found out how the thing works. My current ISP
hasn't yet cleared the ticket he opened about the incident. I have
already begun pushing my federal and provincial reps to regulate
internet operators under the communications ministry including taxes on
a per-byte traffic basis. It's time to beat some manners into the
internet whorehouse, it's unconscionable to have one of humanity's
greatest innovations just regulate itself any longer (the fox in the
chicken coop!). It's totally pathetic, what I saw in all this is that
commercial operators are dumping some of the overhead costs onto the
citizenry who are not even their customers, yet another instance of
caposocialism, that in which big money is the sole beneficiary.

--
Tuesdays are Devuan days: GNU/Linux 4 (chimaera), BIOS-boot, DM=Unknown,
Kernel=5.10.0-25-amd64 on x86_64, DM=Unknown, DE=XFCE, ST=x11,grub2, GPT,
https://imgur.com/x2A9zHw.png https://i.imgur.com/RsbswMP.png

I wrote:
> I use pobox.com for my email. They seem to do a pretty good job. My
> web site and domains are with Gandi. They also offer email but I've
> not used it.

bad sector writes:
> Thanks. The email providers pissed me off early in the game
> by charging $2.50/month extra for every forwarding address.

I use a wildcard address. All mail to sugarbit.com comes to me and I
sort it here.
--
John Hasler
john@sugarbit.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

On 2023-09-12 19:42, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 12.09.2023 um 09:25:36 Uhr schrieb Mike Easter:
>
>> Marco Moock wrote:
>>> Mike Easter:
>>>> Marco Moock wrote:
>>>>> I agree that this is a penalty to the ISP/hoster, although there
>>>>> is no other way for them to learn that the need to do something
>>>>> against spammers.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think a strategy designed to 'teach' an enterprise/business
>>>> something at the cost of using 'innocent victim users' as some kind
>>>> of fodder in an anti-spam war is a particularly good strategy.
>>>
>>> How would you make ISPs care about abuse in their network?
>>>
>> 'network' is an ambiguous term here.
>>
>> Even 'netblock' would be ambiguous. Here we are talking about UCEP
>> 'recklessly' listing *huge* ASNs in its level 3, and *THEN* its
>> ill-informed clients configure to block such a recklessly listed ASN
>> which 'broadly speaking' isn't guilty of spam at all.
>
> It is true that the entire AS isn't guilty, but there are ISPs that
> like spammers. They let them send spam and don't care about it.
> The individual IPs get listed. The the spammer notices that and wants
> another IP, the ISP gives it. The it is getting listed again. If that
> happens too often, the entire AS will be listed.
>
> ISP that cooperate with spammers are bad actors and most people don't
> want them.

Wrong.

Most people don't have a say on this. I don't.

....

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Am 23.09.2023 um 22:03:10 Uhr schrieb Carlos E. R.:

> On 2023-09-12 19:42, Marco Moock wrote:

> > ISP that cooperate with spammers are bad actors and most people
> > don't want them.
>
> Wrong.

Please explain why.
Most people complain about spam, so I assume they don't like providers
that make spam easily possible.

On 2023-09-24 10:32, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 23.09.2023 um 22:03:10 Uhr schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>
>> On 2023-09-12 19:42, Marco Moock wrote:
>
>>> ISP that cooperate with spammers are bad actors and most people
>>> don't want them.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> Please explain why.
> Most people complain about spam, so I assume they don't like providers
> that make spam easily possible.
>

Why did you remove the next paragraph in which I explained the why? I'll
repeat it:

Most people don't have a say on this. I don't.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Am 24.09.2023 um 12:57:12 Uhr schrieb Carlos E. R.:

> On 2023-09-24 10:32, Marco Moock wrote:
> > Am 23.09.2023 um 22:03:10 Uhr schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> >
> >> On 2023-09-12 19:42, Marco Moock wrote:
> >
> >>> ISP that cooperate with spammers are bad actors and most people
> >>> don't want them.
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >
> > Please explain why.
> > Most people complain about spam, so I assume they don't like
> > providers that make spam easily possible.
> >
>
> Why did you remove the next paragraph in which I explained the why?
> I'll repeat it:
>
> Most people don't have a say on this. I don't.

Most people have that, at least indirect, by choosing their ISP.

Most mail server operators use certain blacklists and have spam
filtering active. If people don't like that, they can sometimes change
the settings to allow any incoming mail to their inbox.
Only a small amount of them does that.

Most people I know also complain about spam, so I assume they would
never like providers that actively provide services for spammers.

Carlos E. R. writes:
> Most people don't have a say on this. I don't.

Why do most people not have any say in what email provider to use?
--
John Hasler
john@sugarbit.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

On 2023-09-24 15:19, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 24.09.2023 um 12:57:12 Uhr schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>
>> On 2023-09-24 10:32, Marco Moock wrote:
>>> Am 23.09.2023 um 22:03:10 Uhr schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-09-12 19:42, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ISP that cooperate with spammers are bad actors and most people
>>>>> don't want them.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> Please explain why.
>>> Most people complain about spam, so I assume they don't like
>>> providers that make spam easily possible.
>>>
>>
>> Why did you remove the next paragraph in which I explained the why?
>> I'll repeat it:
>>
>> Most people don't have a say on this. I don't.
>
> Most people have that, at least indirect, by choosing their ISP.

We can not really choose our ISP. Anyway, they all do the same.

>
> Most mail server operators use certain blacklists and have spam
> filtering active. If people don't like that, they can sometimes change
> the settings to allow any incoming mail to their inbox.
> Only a small amount of them does that.
>
> Most people I know also complain about spam, so I assume they would
> never like providers that actively provide services for spammers.
>

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-09-24 16:12, John Hasler wrote:
> Carlos E. R. writes:
>> Most people don't have a say on this. I don't.
>
> Why do most people not have any say in what email provider to use?

ISP, which is where your IP block will be. There is a small choice of
providers that can be counted with one hand, the rest are resellers.

You have to choose an ISP in your area of residence, catering to
residents. One has to look at things such as fiber speed, TV offerings,
etc. How they handle SPAM? They are all the same.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 13:41:10 -0400, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> You have to choose an ISP in your area of residence, catering to
> residents. One has to look at things such as fiber speed, TV offerings,
> etc. How they handle SPAM? They are all the same.

If that were true every isp would be listed at level 3 at uceprotect. Email would
be much worse than it is now, and no one would accept email from anyone other then
a list of allowed senders.

There are a small minority of service providers that do nothing to stop spam from
their customers.

Regard, Dave Hodgins

I wrote:
> Why do most people not have any say in what email provider to use?

Carlos E.R. writes:
> You have to choose an ISP in your area of residence, catering to
> residents. One has to look at things such as fiber speed, TV offerings,
> etc. How they handle SPAM? They are all the same.

There are "free" Webmail providers such as Gmail, which is what most
people use. Most of the rest of us use commercial services such as
Pobox.
--
John Hasler
john@sugarbit.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

On 2023-09-24 20:02, David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 13:41:10 -0400, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> You have to choose an ISP in your area of residence, catering to
>> residents. One has to look at things such as fiber speed, TV offerings,
>> etc. How they handle SPAM? They are all the same.
>
> If that were true every isp would be listed at level 3 at uceprotect.
> Email would
> be much worse than it is now, and no one would accept email from anyone
> other then
> a list of allowed senders.
>
> There are a small minority of service providers that do nothing to stop
> spam from
> their customers.

ALL providers here allow port 25.

Just saying. :-P

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-09-24 20:53, John Hasler wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Why do most people not have any say in what email provider to use?
>
> Carlos E.R. writes:
>> You have to choose an ISP in your area of residence, catering to
>> residents. One has to look at things such as fiber speed, TV offerings,
>> etc. How they handle SPAM? They are all the same.
>
> There are "free" Webmail providers such as Gmail, which is what most
> people use. Most of the rest of us use commercial services such as
> Pobox.

Gmail does not provide IPs to clients. Is not an ISP.

Yet Gmail is a huge source of spammers... If you are big enough, you set
the rules. Nobody blocks them.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

I wrote:
> There are "free" Webmail providers such as Gmail, which is what most
> people use. Most of the rest of us use commercial services such as
> Pobox.

Carlos E. R. writes:
> Gmail does not provide IPs to clients. Is not an ISP.

Client IPs are irrelevant. Gmail is the sender.
--
John Hasler
john@sugarbit.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

On 2023-09-24 22:46, John Hasler wrote:
> I wrote:
>> There are "free" Webmail providers such as Gmail, which is what most
>> people use. Most of the rest of us use commercial services such as
>> Pobox.
>
> Carlos E. R. writes:
>> Gmail does not provide IPs to clients. Is not an ISP.
>
> Client IPs are irrelevant. Gmail is the sender.

Not when I try to do my own server.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-09-24, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-09-24 20:53, John Hasler wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> Why do most people not have any say in what email provider to use?
>>
>> Carlos E.R. writes:
>>> You have to choose an ISP in your area of residence, catering to
>>> residents. One has to look at things such as fiber speed, TV offerings,
>>> etc. How they handle SPAM? They are all the same.
>>
>> There are "free" Webmail providers such as Gmail, which is what most
>> people use. Most of the rest of us use commercial services such as
>> Pobox.
>
> Gmail does not provide IPs to clients. Is not an ISP.

True they do however provide an SMTP "smarthost" service (but I don't
think you can use your own domain name on the free service)

> Yet Gmail is a huge source of spammers... If you are big enough, you set
> the rules. Nobody blocks them.

I've seen lots of spam about gmail addresses, not so much that's
actually traceable to gmail.

--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні

Jasen Betts writes:
> True they do however provide an SMTP "smarthost" service (but I don't
> think you can use your own domain name on the free service)

Pobox provides "smarthost" service on which you can use your own domain.
They will register the domain and set everything up or you can use a
domain registered elsewhere. Others such as Gandi provide similar
service.

If you do use your own domain you need to set up SPF and DKIM. Gandi
makes this easy.
--
John Hasler
john@sugarbit.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Am 24.09.2023 um 19:36:54 Uhr schrieb Carlos E. R.:

> We can not really choose our ISP. Anyway, they all do the same.

I don't know where you reside, but where I do (Germany) I can choose of
a couple.
And for rented servers, I can almost choose all in the world if they
are willing to rent a VPS to me.

Am 24.09.2023 um 19:41:10 Uhr schrieb Carlos E. R.:

> How they handle SPAM? They are all the same.

That is different. There are providers who care about spam and simply
don't offer services to spammers and providers that create a good
environment for spammers by rotating them inside their IP address
ranges and such stuff.

Am 24.09.2023 um 21:11:36 Uhr schrieb Carlos E. R.:

> ALL providers here allow port 25.

That doesn't mean that they don't care about spam. If they received the
first abuse message and verified that is originated from your system,
they might simply block it until you eliminated the reason.

Am 24.09.2023 um 21:15:36 Uhr schrieb Carlos E. R.:

> Yet Gmail is a huge source of spammers... If you are big enough, you
> set the rules. Nobody blocks them.

They already were on blacklists.

Am 25.09.2023 um 00:53:53 Uhr schrieb Jasen Betts:

> I've seen lots of spam about gmail addresses, not so much that's
> actually traceable to gmail.

For that SPF exists.