Re: failure notice (about relays.osirusoft.com)
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:39:26AM -0500, Alex Borges wrote:
> > if you really cared about the issue, you'd be a lot more productive
> > if you spent your energies explaining to chinese-speaking sysadmins
> > what the spam problem is, why they've been black-listed and what
> > they can do to get off the list. that would be far more effective
> > than whining on english-speaking mailing lists and newsgroups.
>
> Now..... this answer is not acceptable i think. Although, well,
> everyone is free to speak their mind.
actually, it is.
there is a documented procedure for getting a server's RBL listing
removed. he chooses to ignore that procedure.
he claims that it's OK for chinese sysadmins to ignore spam complaints
because they don't know english and don't understand the complaint. he
does read english and can act as an interpreter for them. if he really
cared about resolving the issue, he'd do something productive about it
rather than just whinge to people who have nothing to do with the
listing.
> IF This guy is indeed internally blocking, for personal reasons, a
> list that is community supported (in the sense that the community
> trusts it), then Lim's accusation is valid and serius i think.
Lim's accusation is not valid.
while it's only a single data point, i know from my own users that
osirusoft does not block all mail servers in asia. i work for an ISP in
Victoria, Australia where we have a large Asian immigrant population. a
large percentage of our user base is Asian, and they regularly
correspond with family and conduct business via email to and from
various countries in Asia. they rarely complain about blocked mail, i
get many times more complaints from users about telstra's bigpond or
ozemail's mail servers being blocked than i get about asian mail servers
being blocked.
i get only a handful of such complaints per month total (i can't even
remember the last time the complaint was in regard to an asian mail
server - it must have been over a year ago), and they are given the
option of being put on our "spamlovers" map which bypasses RBL and other
anti-spam checks....very few of them actually want that.
i know many other people using relays.osirusoft.com on both small and
large mail servers. the overwhelming assessment is that the osirusoft
RBL is extremely accurate with a very low false-positive rate and a very
high ability to block spam.
> I mean, there should be no "hidden" records of a list like this one,
> they should all be open. Otherwise its like a trojan horse to put ppl
> out of business.
there are no "hidden" records. you've been sucked in by Lim's emotive
language.
think about it. how can an RBL possibly have hidden records? every
record in an RBL is published via DNS, otherwise it doesn't work.
> Someone actually suggested blocking all of Asia to which every single
> member objected. Cant do that, ONE lost mail directed to us by a lost
> mexican newbie living in Hong Kong is reason enough to not block this
> way.
outside of jason lim's paranoid fantasies, nobody is actually blocking
all of asia.
> So actually, being told that an important, widely accepted tool as
> osiru is being secretly controled and changed by one guy is not a hapy
> thought. I will object to its use if the guys at the LUG propose it as
> an option to our spam problem.
i suggest you read the information on the relays.osirusoft.com web site
before coming to any conclusion. it's far more accurate and reliable
than the rantings of one delusional paranoid.
Lim is just upset that his ISP is listed for being a spam source. from
that he has constructed a paranoid delusion that osirusoft lists all of
asia. the actual facts of the situation don't matter to him.
instead of lobbying his ISP to clean up their act and get rid of their
spamming customers (and/or voting with his feet and leaving), he has
decided that he will whine about osirusoft on various mailing lists and
newsgroups. not very productive.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Reply to: