Re: [Fwd: Re: Spamassasin over RBL, was Re: rblsmtpd -t?]
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 04:31:24PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote:
> It would be useful if you backed up your point with some sort of
> evidence or proof.
you're the one making the claim - the onus is on YOU to *prove* that
spamcop has a lower collateral damage than other RBLs.
> My point is that the collateral damage is lower, due to the fact that
> entire IP ranges are not blocked, and hence it is useful for hosting
> companies and ISPs.
your theoretical point isn't worth very much, especially when practical
experience directly contradicts your theory.
> What is your's? What fact do you have to prove otherwise? How does
> blocking entire IP ranges like other RBLs lower collateral damage?
professionally run RBLs block genuine spam sources - including open
relays.
operations like spamcop can automatically blacklist any IP address which
happens to be mentioned (or forged) in the headers of any message that
any moron user forwards to the spamcop system. this kind of idiot
automation results in much higher collateral damage.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: