Talk:Open mail relay

message: I honestly can't help but wonder about the anon who seemed to confidently know so much about the early Internet's mail practices, yet manages to contribute such logical fallacies to WP as fact, and whose edits I am currently refining.
# Open relay elimination has had no effect on spam because spam volume has increased over the same time period that open relays have been eliminated.
#*Of course, this is inconclusive. The only way to convincingly argue that DNSBLs have had no effect on spam is to compare a system without open relays (and/or DNSBLs) and a system with them, and then compare the trends. Proving that DNSBLs has not stopped spam entirely has no bearing on whether or not it cuts down on some spam.
# The First Amendment requires other people to let me do and say whatever I want on another person's property.
#* This naggingly adolescent misconception is surprisingly (or perhaps not suprisingly) prevalent among so many vocal voices. If one's only understanding of the First Amendment consists solely of the two-word phrase "free speech", then they believe this means they can step on other people for their own ends. Of course, this is not true. Anyone who reads the text of the First Amendment (it's part of this big old piece of paper called the Constitution) sees that it prevents the government from arresting you because of what you say. But we have private property in this country; it is not a socialism where the government owns everything, and private property means that I control the things I own, and even if I let you use them, I still get to say how you use them, and I can decide not to let you use them, cause they're mine. This includes me not letting you using my email server.
Anyway, whee.
- Keith D. Tyler [flame] 19:46, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
#*Open relays were never eliminated, but were never the problem, either. 
#*The First Amendment requires the government to let you say whatever you want in public. 
Deananderson (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fallacies

message: A number of people (all anons) have added a snippet to the effect of "blocking open relays is today pointless because no one uses open relays to send spam anymore."
This is not a logical conclusion. The fact that no one is trying to break into your house does not mean that you should stop locking your doors or remove your alarm system.
- Keith D. Tyler [flame] 23:48, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Right again. At the moment, people logging into my Linux hosts through unpassworded accounts is not a problem. That doesn't mean I should go set up a bunch of unpassworded accounts. :) --FOo 00:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Obsoleted necessity?

message: Keith Tyler:  You leap from one topic to another.  Open relay elimination has had no effect on spam.  This is not unanticipated: RFC 2505, which advises people to secure their open relays, warns that the "relay rules" will not reduce spam.  The issue is elimination of open relays, not DNSBLs.  The implication of the caution in RFC 2505 is that DNSBLs will be necessary: the campaign to eliminate open relays will not reduce incoming spam because the incoming spam volume will remain undiminished as long as the number of available open relays to forward that spam is adequate for the spam volume.  Stating that elimination of open relays doesn't affect spam says nothing about DNSBLs.  It is probably true that many of the loudest DNSBL advocates are also among the loudest "secure the open relays" advocates.  That doesn't change the nature of the statement about securing open relays being ineffectual.  There is such a thing as being too eager to leap to the defense of DNSBLs.
(changing subject.)
As far as the obsolesence of blocking open relays is concerned I agree heartily with what you say: while there is a possibility of abuse precautions against that abuse are necessary.  I'd go further: while there is any chance that spammers might abuse open relays there should be active vigilance against them.  For that I advocate open relay honeypots.  Rather than act at the destination server level (as DNSBLs do) I advocate countering the spammers at the abuse level, which is what honeypots do.  
I think a reasonable case can be made that it is open relay honeypots that have caused the decline in open relay abuse but I suspect putting that specifically into a Wikipedia article would just lead to a long and mostly fruitless battle.  Suffice it to say that of the three main abuse-based spam pathways (open relay abuse, open proxy abuse, and zombie abuse) open relay abuse appears to have been largely knocked down.  Were we still following the "secure your open relay" philosophy there would be little reason for the spammers to not abuse open relays.
Long and extensive descriptions of the theory behind open relay honeypots were posted in news.admin.net-abuse.email.  While all (anti-spammer and spammer alike) could read those it appears that the spammers may have paid the most attention.  (This is not to deny the value of the honeypots that were made available, such as Jackpot.)  Seeing their vulnerability the spammers moved on to open proxy abuse.  When open proxy honeypots began to appear the spammers started moving to zombie abuse to escape the wicked effectiveness of zombie honeypots, as used, for example, by Ron Guilmette.  
There's no reason to not have zombie honeypots (and then there's not likely to be any new path the spammers can abuse after zombies.)  Microsoft recently converted an actual zombie system to a honeypot and gathered enough evidence that they could file suit against about 20 defendants, most of them "John Does."  That's ONE zombie honeypot, 20 defendants.  Of course Microsoft has the legal resurces to successfully file the suits and the stature to do so but the power of that single honeypot should be appreciated.  Ordinary users operate in precisely the part of the Internet that the spammers choose to abuse: zombie honeypots operated by such ordinary users could have a major anti-spam effect (and of course the spammers don't clearly know which IP addresses are honeypots nor do they know for any IP address that might be a zombie honeypot whether the operator is "just an ordinary user" or is a vey large organization with massive legal resources.)
Minasbeede 16:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Different Things

message: This part of the article seems really foreign to me:
Nowadays, e-mail transfer by "relaying," or pass-along methods, is almost forgotten. Backbone networks and Internet switches make it cost effective and expeditious for end-user PCs or even cellphones to send mail directly to the target host, without need for relaying through a "middleman" site.
Don't almost all end users pass their outgoing mail via SMTP to their ISP's server,
and isn't the proper term for that relaying?
Compare "relay" with "open relay" – the latter implies that the sender may use a certain
SMTP server without either him or the recipient mailbox being local to that server.
JöG 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of semantics, I would have to agree with you. However, in practice, "open relay" and "relay" were treated synonymously. That is to say, client -> client ISP -> recipient ISP -> recipient (with no "middleman" servers) was not considered to be relaying. This usage is not strictly correct but, hey, much English usage isn't. HairyWombat 04:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mail transfer by relaying forgotten?

message: Self-promotion
Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.
Examples of these types of material include:
   1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
   2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
   3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.
The dispute of self-promotion involves the links to the Chris Neill Story.  The IADL.ORG site contains links and copies of email messages to well-known mailing list by the parties involved in the incident. Anderson was one of the parties involved.  Much of the information
on the cited IADL.ORG page is from mailing list posts by Chris Neill about the incident.  
It is not the case the IADL.ORG site shows only one side of the dispute.
IADL.ORG is a website Dean Anderson maintains, but it is not a personal website.  It does not promote any personal, 
private, or commercial interests of Dean Anderson, nor any business interest of Dean Anderson. 
While the dispute between Anderson and Neill may be similar in some respects to a legal adversary, 
in fact Anderson was never a party to any of the actual legal aspects of the dispute: Anderson did not complain to the FBI. 
Anderson merely disputed Neill's public claims that it was legally OK to abuse open relays. When Neill
abused Anderson's relays, Anderson complained to Neill's employer, Verio.  Neill's abuse of Anderson's relays 
started a chain of events that eventually led to the termination of his employment with Verio.
This is event is significant to open relay history because many people at the time believed Neill's public assertions about the law. 
These assertions led  persons opposed to open relays to abuse open relays. 
This fact consequently caused advocates of open relay to hide open relays, and also caused open relay advocates 
not to engage in public discussion of open relays.
To the extent there is a conflict of interest, that conflict is disclosed, and Anderson therefore complies with the COI policy.
Deananderson (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dean, I'm not going to debate your website here, but from my investigations years ago and rechecking it recently, I find it highly biased and a horrible case of cherry-picking "facts".   The problem with the conflict of interest is you are promoting your own website, which is explained on the WP:COI page.  At least at the time you wrote your website, you were also running open mail relays and promoting their use, which makes you too close to the subject to be unbiased.  This is also explained on the WP:COI page.  It isn't that I have not listened to you or though about your arguments, it is that I have listened to them many many times before. Wrs1864 (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusation of Self-Promotion/COI made against Dean Anderson

message: I have re-written much of the section on closing e-mail relays.  If any of my changes are inconsistent with consensus, then please put a note on my talk page.
Bwrs (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-write 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Open mail relay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080306235101/http://www.ftc.gov:80/opa/2004/01/opsecure.shtm to http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/01/opsecure.shtm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080601095441/http://www.wired.com:80/culture/lifestyle/news/2001/07/44876?currentPage=all to http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2001/07/44876?currentPage=all
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Open mail relay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080224195334/http://www.ja.net:80/services/mail/janet-spam-relay-tester-and-notification-system/repairing-open-mail-relays.html to http://www.ja.net/services/mail/janet-spam-relay-tester-and-notification-system/repairing-open-mail-relays.html#expected
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Open mail relay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kb.indiana.edu/data/aivh.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120727212031/http://preview.samspade.in/d/nanaefaq.html to http://preview.samspade.in/d/nanaefaq.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified