[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: failure notice (about relays.osirusoft.com)

> whether you like it or not, anyone can block email on their own servers
> using whatever criteria they choose.  you do NOT have a right to have
> your mail accepted.  nobody does.  that choice rests with the recipient
> server.

Yeah... except many End-users don't know / not aware of what RBLs the ISP
they are using uses, nor in many cases do they have a choice.

So, I'm bringing the fact to light that many end-users are missing out on
legitimate email from Asia.

> you have two choices:
> 1. explain to your ISP why they shouldn't be supporting spammers and get
> them to enforce an anti-spam policy.
> 2. move to an ISP which doesn't support spammers.  if enough people did
> this and told them why, your current ISP might finally acquire a clue
> and change their ways.

AND I REPEAT (since you didn't choose to reply to this):

reveals 2620 messages concerning rackspace spam



reveals 4260 messages concerning Telstra spam.

What do you think now?

Why are the above two ISPs/hosting companies not in the Osirusoft RBL
then, comapred to iAdvatage's paltry hundred or something?

> > iAdvantage provides bandwidth to many hundreds of large corporations
> > in HK... overall i'd say many thousands of websites are hosted there
> > (mostly Chinese probably). So with one fell swoop all these sites can
> > no longer send email properly. Can we say collateral damage to the
> > max?
> so what?  telstra and ozemail (the latter is owned by uunet) here in
> australia host thousands of legitimate businesses, and actually show
> some signs of pursuing an anti-spam policy.  they still get black-listed
> (and rightly so) when they're caught running open relays or refuse to
> terminate a spammer's account.   the truth is that it is ONLY the fact
> that various RBLs will list them that has forced them to have an
> anti-spam policy and actually enforce it.

See above.

> unless it affects their bottom-line (i.e. when the costs of supporting
> spam are greater than the profits from supporting spam), they don't care
> and they're not going to do anything about it.

See above.

Reply to: