Why not a private news server?

[Roger Heflin]

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, David Cooley wrote:

> At 10:28 AM 11/29/1999 -0600, you wrote:
> >On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, David Cooley wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >As it is right now spammers would have no problem getting on the list, but
> > > >we dont really have a problem with it, do we?
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually they do... The list requires a VALID email address that can be
> > > verified before the subscriber can post.  News servers, Public and private
> > > do not.
> >
> >How hard is it to get a valid email?  yahoo, hotmail, and a thousand other
> >free email services
> 
> 
> Yes, but if they don't respond they don't get to post.  If they do respond, 
> then spam, they can be tracked down.  Yahoo, Hotmail, Excite etc all log 
> where the connection came from, so the dial up account they use will have a 
> record of who was dialed in to that port at that time.

There way too many holes in what we already have.


If a spammer were to claim he was one of us, he would be able to post
his message to the list with no problem.  It does take some effort,
and there might be some indication of where he came from, but were he
came from would probably be a throw away dial up commection or
throught a open mail relay that did not log anything useful.  The
current security setup does not actually check to see that the message
came from the proper area for that user, just that it claims to be a
proper user.

The password protected news server with an account/password for each
user and that associated with a email address would be actually a bit
more secure that what we currently have.

				Roger