5 ms·

> Botnets appeared as a way to get around RBLs, and in response spam fighters mapped out the internet to create a "policy block list" - ranges of IPs that were

> Botnets appeared as a way to get around RBLs, and in response spam fighters mapped out the internet to create a "policy block list" - ranges of IPs that were assigned to residential connections and thus should not be sending any email at all. So basically, I can't send email from home? This is… unfortunate. If we want freedom, we need decentralization, and this kills it.

Spearchucker 12y ago
Hey I've no idea of anything, and don't have a dog in this fight either, but reading everything here I think decentralization is actually the answer. Yes, you'd not get that global reach, and your network of contacts would be severely limited (presumably to those you know). But a decentralised system could do E2E and P2P and run from home. Running that beside traditional, clear-text and consequently spam-proof email strikes me as a sensible balance. One (open, centralized) system for global comms. Another (closed, decentralized) for secure comms. Maybe even more than one "another", if contexts require different audiences.
- loup-vaillant 12y ago
  I'd rather not have most of my communications (even mundane ones) read by a third party that also reads everything else. Gmail is bad enough, but this is a really Big Brother.
baudehlo 12y ago
You can't send unauthenticated (anonymous) email from home machines, at least not directly. It's not really as bad as it sounds.
zokier 12y ago
Afaik outgoing port 25 (ie smtp) is blocked in large portion of residential connections. And it is a very good thing in the current state of affairs.
- loup-vaillant 12y ago
  It forces me to trust a remote host. Not good. Email is supposed to go from the sender's machine to the receiver's machine. That's how it should work by default, that's how TLS connections makes the communication vaguely secure, and that's how it makes it difficult for powerful third parties to have a peek at everyone's communications. As far as I know, Gmail accounts are only a subpoena away from the US government. But a sheeva plug (or R-Pi) hosted at my home? They need a warrant. Even for countries that don't need warrants, wire-tapping everyone is expensive: it must be done one home at a time. Now maybe the botnet situation is so bad that it is worth sacrificing our ability to send e-mail. Still, this strikes me as the wrong solution. Blocking outgoing 25 by default is fine, but we need to be able to lift the restriction if we want.
anon4 12y ago
You can, but it goes in the spam folder. I receive mails from smartmon and mdadm and have just marked my IP as "definitely not spam, you guys".
- loup-vaillant 12y ago
  Many corporate email systems don't have personal spam folders. They just redirect suspect email /dev/null, or otherwise make it inaccessible. It has been a problem for me in the past, and I don't even send my email from home. And there's the case of looking for work. I'm somewhat proud of showing my personalized domain name, but if using something other than a huge webmail can cause it to fall into a spam folder… Fortunately that has yet to happen, but this is one of the reason I hesitate to switch from remote SSH to a physical server at home.

Spearchucker 12y ago

Hey I've no idea of anything, and don't have a dog in this fight either, but reading everything here I think decentralization is actually the answer. Yes, you'd not get that global reach, and your network of contacts would be severely limited (presumably to those you know). But a decentralised system could do E2E and P2P and run from home. Running that beside traditional, clear-text and consequently spam-proof email strikes me as a sensible balance. One (open, centralized) system for global comms. Another (closed, decentralized) for secure comms. Maybe even more than one "another", if contexts require different audiences.

loup-vaillant 12y ago
I'd rather not have most of my communications (even mundane ones) read by a third party that also reads everything else. Gmail is bad enough, but this is a really Big Brother.

baudehlo 12y ago

You can't send unauthenticated (anonymous) email from home machines, at least not directly. It's not really as bad as it sounds.

zokier 12y ago

Afaik outgoing port 25 (ie smtp) is blocked in large portion of residential connections. And it is a very good thing in the current state of affairs.

loup-vaillant 12y ago
It forces me to trust a remote host. Not good. Email is supposed to go from the sender's machine to the receiver's machine. That's how it should work by default, that's how TLS connections makes the communication vaguely secure, and that's how it makes it difficult for powerful third parties to have a peek at everyone's communications. As far as I know, Gmail accounts are only a subpoena away from the US government. But a sheeva plug (or R-Pi) hosted at my home? They need a warrant. Even for countries that don't need warrants, wire-tapping everyone is expensive: it must be done one home at a time. Now maybe the botnet situation is so bad that it is worth sacrificing our ability to send e-mail. Still, this strikes me as the wrong solution. Blocking outgoing 25 by default is fine, but we need to be able to lift the restriction if we want.

anon4 12y ago

You can, but it goes in the spam folder. I receive mails from smartmon and mdadm and have just marked my IP as "definitely not spam, you guys".

loup-vaillant 12y ago
Many corporate email systems don't have personal spam folders. They just redirect suspect email /dev/null, or otherwise make it inaccessible. It has been a problem for me in the past, and I don't even send my email from home. And there's the case of looking for work. I'm somewhat proud of showing my personalized domain name, but if using something other than a huge webmail can cause it to fall into a spam folder… Fortunately that has yet to happen, but this is one of the reason I hesitate to switch from remote SSH to a physical server at home.