Re: Every spam is sacred
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> said:
> > Both DNSBLs and traditional filters may produce false positives.
>
> The difference is that one is based on content, the other is
> based on the IP neighborhood. Mere IP address proximity to a spammer,
> or potential spammers, is not a good criteria for labelling a mail as
> spam.
You have not read http://dsbl.org, *please* read it.
Open relays, open proxies and insecure formmail scripts are listed by
individual IP, not by "blocks". Is this so much difficult to understand?
> > The difference is that DNSBLs reject spam and tells the legitimate
> > user that he should not send his valuable message using an open
> > proxy (for example)
>
> You said it. Legitimate users are impacted by DNSBLs, and for
> this reason alone I would object to their use on the mailing lists.
I meant "legitimate user (if any)".
Legitimate users do not use open proxies to send email. They use the
SMTP server of their ISP.
BTW, we are not talking about mailing lists.
> > But, I repeat, the proposal (for now) is to tag messages using a
> > X-RBL-Warning: header, I don't understand all the fuss about this.
>
> The objection, on my part, is to yor initial statement (that
> you are now back pedaling from) that this was the first step to
> instituting a RBL based filtering. And if that is not the goal, why
> are we engaging in this exercise?
Read my recent reply to Duncan.
Reply to: