Originally posted by Weedpacket
Blocking it at the receiving end does nothing to reduce that load, and I don't see those "opt-out" lists having any effect (there are problems with jurisdiction to start with).
That was the essence of my question. If no server on the planet would accept mail from spammerA, would he still be able to charge his "customers" for the service of distributing his junk? That's a position I've taken, for better or for worse.
I've put myself in a position of looking a tad like an idiot to some people in the Open Source community, because I block SMTP connections from sizeable portions of the Asian, South American, and European networks. AAMOF, over a third of the available IPv4 namespace is blocked by default. So, every once in a while someone with an overseas IP really needs to contact me (or wants to, or thinks they need to), and the best they can do is send a message to some mailing list(s) I read with "FAO Dale" on it...I guess they don't believe in contact forms.
I suppose the sad fact is that somebody somewhere is always going to have a misconfigured MTA....
The only sensible place to control it is at the transmission end. With a small tactical nuke, for preference.
I agree with the sentiment, but I'd have to remind you that the last war in Europe killed a large number of people, only some of whom were actually guilty of much ....
OTOH, it wasn't too difficult to get through the Low Countries, was it? Hmm......
