Re: [Fwd: Re: Spamassasin over RBL, was Re: rblsmtpd -t?]
> > Okay... in that case, you can block virtually ALL the large network
> > providers and hosting providers like Sprint, UUnet, Level3, etc.,
> > because nearly all of them have some sort of spam problem, big or
> > small. I know of virtually no large provider that has not had 1 single
> > complaint of spam about them.
>
> if they are running an open relay then i will block them. if they allow
> spammers to hide on their network then i will block them.
You are *ONLY* concerned with open relays?
What about all the spam that is direct to MX or uses the ISP's mail
server?
> > > > > why the hell should an RBL care how big an ISP is? it's not
> > > > > relevant - they're either part of the spam problem or they're
> > > > > not. size doesn't come into it.
> >
> > Okay... go ahead and block Sprint, UUnet, Level3, Hotmail, YahooMail,
> > and all other providers with spam complaints.
>
> i don't have a problem with blocking servers belonging to any of the
> above - if they are part of the spam problem (whether due to
> incompetence or greed), they should be black-listed.
Ah ha... but Sprint was blocked by some RBLs... not just an IP or server
of Sprint, all of Sprint's netblocks.
Apparently, as your say, that is the only way for them to wake up (as
collateral damage costs the ISP money), and that is how all the manual
RBLs work. Spamcop blocks individual IPs... ah... are you contradicting
yourself?
>
> > On the other hand, Hotmail getting 100 complaints when they have...
> > what... 10M email accounts (or more?), would be plain stupid.
>
> if hotmail runs an open relay then it should be black-listed.
>
> > It is all relative. And to say otherwise is plainly foolish.
>
> no, it's not relative. there is an absolute, black-and-white criteria
> which you are too stupid to see: if a site is part of the spam problem
> then it should be black-listed. if it is not part of the problem then
> it shouldn't be listed.
Then go ahead and block UUnet's netblocks, as well as Sprint, Level3, and
all the other big company's netblocks, because I doubt you will find one
big company with a spotless spam record.
> > > a bad (i.e. spamhaven) ISP should be blacklisted regardless of their
> > > size. good ISPs shouldn't be blacklisted.
> >
> > Your definition of "good" and "bad" is so subjective it isn't worth
> > commenting on.
>
> to the contrary, your lowbrow definition is subjective - relying on
> arbitrary and irrelevant criteria like ISP size.
An ISP's size is "arbitrary and irrelevent", while "good and bad" is
clear. If you say so.
> mine is purely objective: is a site part of the spam problem or not? do
> they originate or relay spam? if yes, then they are "bad" so blacklist
> them. if not, then don't.
THEN go ahead and block UUnet's netblocks, as spam is proven to originate
with them. Sprint, Level3, Reach, and a whole host of the big networks all
have proven to have spam originate with them. Go ahead and blacklist them,
and see what you are left with.
> > I work with facts and figures. Spamcop does the same... if a host is
> > considered to have above 2% email as spam, or something like that,
> > then it will block that host. So therefore, if UUnet (good or bad)
> > sends out 10M emails per day, and Spam complaints are 1000, then
> > okay... but if a tiny host sends out 500K emails, and spam complaints
> > are also 1K, then obviously they have a problem.
>
> this idea is brain-damaged. all it does is allow spammers to hide in
> the volume of larger ISP...they can get away with spamming (and the ISP
> can get away with signing pink contracts) as long as they keep the spam
> under X percent of the total volume.
Well, if they did that, then obviously the volume of spam would rise, and
then the % of spam to email volume would increase, and hence they would
end up blocked.
> hosting or relaying for a spammer is not suddenly OK just because you
> send millions of emails a day. it's wrong if you send only 1 email/day,
> and it's still wrong if you send 10 billion emails/day.
Very good. Then please, go ahead and block virtual every large host (and
since you said even tiny hosts with 1 email/day), and every small host
with any spam complaints against it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: