Mail servers changes (INFO)

In response to one or two people who voiced complaints about MAPS. First, one or two people said there are valid reasons for running a mail server as an open relay. *BS*. That's not just silly, that's ludicrous. There is no reason to configure your mail server as an open relay unless you are specifically intending to allow SPAM/UCE. Any possible scenario that you can come up with as to why a mail server should be an open relay can easily be addressed with other methods that were specifically designed for those cases. As a matter of fact, most any mail server software is preconfigured by default to disallow relaying (nowadays). Second, I am not keeping anyone who wants to operate an open relay from doing so. They are perfectly free to do it. However, *I* am not obligated to talk to their mail server and put myself at risk. To take the argument to silly levels to illustrate the point. Let's say someone chooses to configure their mail server so that every inbound and outbound piece of email gets a virus attached to it. Fine - I'll defend their right to do that. But I will also defend my right to not converse with their server. I'm not saying folks can't run open relays - I'm just saying I don't have to allow my servers to come in contact with them. Third, the above argument isn't quite as silly as it sounds. You think SPAM isn't on the same level as virii? When spam traffic isn't at denial of service levels, it costs us hundreds of manhours of support. I can't begin to tell you how many calls we get each day from people who have received so much SPAM (or a small amount but the spam has big attachments) that they think their mail isn't working when in fact they're trying to download 200 messages over a slow 33.6k link. We have to go in and manually clean out their mailboxes for them. Not to mention the amount of processor, memory, and disk space it chews up on my servers, or network bandwidth that I have to pay a kings ransom for. And then when the spam hits denial of service levels, it directly affects both my and my customers livelihoods. Mail servers drives fill up or processor usage tops out... etc. etc. and the servers halt. Then my customers can't get the email service they're paying for and my image suffers. Fourth, DUL does not indiscriminately single out users. Only specific addresses that have proven to send (not one or two, but) hundreds of bulk spam and that refused to cease doing so are listed. DUL does not reject mail just because someone has a dynamic IP on their mail server. That argument is plain false. Lastly - I absolutely hate to say this (and do so reluctantly) - and anyone here who knows me knows I'm am not a dictatorial pushy force-my-will type person. I am not a "net-nazi"; many of you recall how hesitant I was to make any decision on my own (re: the reply address argument of several weeks ago) regarding the list. However, in this case I'm truely *VERY* sorry to say apologetically - you don't have a choice. If it was just the list, that'd be a different story but when it affects my entire service, that's my call to make. You are all welcome to discuss the merits/deficiencies of open relays, but our servers will continue to use MAPS. Respectfully, Jay West