IP Block Lists For Email Are Out of Control
Yes, after some considerable amount of reflection on this topic I've reached a conclusion. I feel vulnerable already!
This is a difficult issue really. It arose in response to the thorny and vexatious problem of spam, the scourge of email systems worldwide. Certainly I don't want to have to put up with spam. Sensible people don't. But is the cure as bad as the complaint?
I'm sorry to say that it does seem to be just as big an obstacle to email communication as the spam problem it tries to deal with. And quite frankly, I'm just about as annoyed with this particular so-called solution as I am with spam itself.
The two things that raise my ire are these. Firstly, it is way too indiscriminate. Whole IP address ranges become blocked, rendering communications impossible. This is akin to shooting the messenger or tossing out a bunch of grapes because just one is spoiled. It is unacceptable to cause so much collateral damage to innocent users.
The second annoyance is the extraordinary arrogance of organisations that set themseves up as watchdogs or internet police, invent their own standards and policies in determining addresses to block and when or if they will unblock them and then peddle their block lists to lazy and uncaring subscribing ISPs.
I realise that ISPs feel wearied by the ongoing war against spam and are easy marks for those who offer what seems like a solution. The trouble is, they miss the point. Their war is not actually against spam, it is against spammers. As long as they allow the spammers to keep them focussed on technicalities and the spam itself, we all lose.
To their credit - and I can't beieve I'm saying this, but credit where credit is due - Microsoft had the right idea when they started targetting spammers with bounties and lawsuits. They seemed to realise that spamming is a behavioural and hence person-centred problem, not simply a technical one. But what has happened on that front? I certainly don't know.
Anyway, enough woffling for now.
This is a difficult issue really. It arose in response to the thorny and vexatious problem of spam, the scourge of email systems worldwide. Certainly I don't want to have to put up with spam. Sensible people don't. But is the cure as bad as the complaint?
I'm sorry to say that it does seem to be just as big an obstacle to email communication as the spam problem it tries to deal with. And quite frankly, I'm just about as annoyed with this particular so-called solution as I am with spam itself.
The two things that raise my ire are these. Firstly, it is way too indiscriminate. Whole IP address ranges become blocked, rendering communications impossible. This is akin to shooting the messenger or tossing out a bunch of grapes because just one is spoiled. It is unacceptable to cause so much collateral damage to innocent users.
The second annoyance is the extraordinary arrogance of organisations that set themseves up as watchdogs or internet police, invent their own standards and policies in determining addresses to block and when or if they will unblock them and then peddle their block lists to lazy and uncaring subscribing ISPs.
I realise that ISPs feel wearied by the ongoing war against spam and are easy marks for those who offer what seems like a solution. The trouble is, they miss the point. Their war is not actually against spam, it is against spammers. As long as they allow the spammers to keep them focussed on technicalities and the spam itself, we all lose.
To their credit - and I can't beieve I'm saying this, but credit where credit is due - Microsoft had the right idea when they started targetting spammers with bounties and lawsuits. They seemed to realise that spamming is a behavioural and hence person-centred problem, not simply a technical one. But what has happened on that front? I certainly don't know.
Anyway, enough woffling for now.
posted by Dr Peter Tylee at
12:18 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home