Re: Every spam is sacred
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:18:54 +0200 (CEST), Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> said:
> 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?
Is it so hard to understand that legitimate, non spam mail may
also comr from open relays? Coercing people who run open relays to
change and match your ideals by blocking mail from them is not
something I wish to promote.
>> > 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)".
Yup. And legitimate users sending legitimate mail to me should
get through, despite the fact that their ISP has a misconfigured MTA.
> BTW, we are not talking about mailing lists.
That makes it worse, if mail targeted at me is blocked.
manoj
--
Let us live!!! Let us love!!! Let us share the deepest secrets of our
souls!!! You first.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: