Re: [Fwd: Re: Spamassasin over RBL, was Re: rblsmtpd -t?]
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 10:21:30AM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2002, Russell Coker wrote:
> > I currently use the following black lists, and IMHO none of them give
> > false positives.
> > dialups.mail-abuse.org,
btw, dynablock.wirehub.net is better. unlike the MAPS DUL it is updated
regulary. it's also a free service.
> You must be kidding. This is a list that considers people who don't
> use their provider's MTA as "trespassers" (quote from MAPS'
> information page about this list),
you don't have to use your dialup ISP's mail server. you are free to
use any reputable mail server on the net (e.g. via uucp over tcp).
> and assumes dialup/DSL people to be guilty by default.
Dynamic IP address is the criteria.
seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption to me. in my experience,
all mail which comes directly from a dynamic IP *IS* spam.
the tiny handful of hobbyists with their own domains hosted on a dynamic
IP with linux or freebsd should quit whining and use their ISP's mail
server. or get themselves a uucp over tcp mail feed. or batched smtp
over ssh. or similar. frankly, if they're not competent to do any of
these things then they're not competent enough to be running a mail
server on the internet.
> Making the ISP accountible for the mail sent by their customers by
> having it forced through their MTA in this way is a senseless way of
> approaching the problem, IMHO.
making ISPs responsible for the mail sent by their customers is the ONLY
thing that actually works.
craig sanders <email@example.com>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com