Georg Graf
georg.graf@wu-wien.ac.at
Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:04:51 +0200
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:38:29AM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > I played with the idea of just commenting out the "include > > whitecommon" line in my whiteclnt. > > The idea of server-side whitelists is at best useful in rare, special > cases for private DCC servers. At start I had the notion that DCC > servers would have whitelists for all legitimate bulk mail senders. > I eventually realized that building a list of all legitimate bulk mail > senders such as mailing lists would depend on all of them registering > with me, and anything like that on the Internet has been crazy since > the 1970's. So I added client-side whitelists. > > A basic notion of the DCC is that while an outside or central service > can determine "bulk," "solicited" can only be determined by individual > mail targets. If a DCC server can be configured for all mail recipients > using it, then a server white/blacklist can make sense. For example, > Acme Widget's DCC server might whitelist Acme's own mail systems and > blacklist AAA Gadget's email as well as mail from Porn_R_US.com. > On the other hand, whitelists are not likely to make sense for a public > DCC server, because a public server knows little of the 40,000 or more > anonymous DCC clients using it. Hello Vernon, this sounds very plausible to me. I am still wondering whether I should continue to "include whitecommon" (unmodified from distribution) in whitelist on dccd.wu-wien.ac.at or not, since it's a public dcc server. Somehow I feel all of them should use the same whitelist (an empty one). But maybe It's just ok not to care ;) Thank you, George -- Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration Central and Internet Services Section Center for Computer Services UNIX Server Administration PGP/GPG Key ID: 0xa5232ad5