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

Re: Postfix! [WAS: Re: Sendmail or Qmail ? ..]

On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 11:54:28AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> Hear hear! Nationality doesn't matter. We're talking about technical merit
> of things here. Let's keep race, creed, religion, colour out of this.

If we gave that impression, that was not the idea. If someone has that
feeling, my apologies.

> Don't mention SPEWS. SPEWS is famous for blocking large non-USA ISPs at
> the drop of a hat, while large USA spam-support ISPs get away with murder.
> Why? Because Spews is either run by someone in the USA or knows that if
> they started applying the same principals to everyone, more and more large
> USA ISPs will be blocked completely, and less and less people will use
> SPEWS. Thus SPEWS has double-standards in this regard.

Not only SPEWS has that problem :(
> I prefer ones that have the same standard, regardless of what country you
> are in. Many many block lists are available... www.spamcop.net... or just
> check out one of the best Block List comparisons yourself at:
> http://www.declude.com/JunkMail/Support/ip4r.htm

We currently only use rbl's based on spamtraps and I must say it stops
a great number of spammessages. That mostly its automated and no one
has to submit anything except spammers that use open-proxies, agents,
faulty mailservers, etc.

> Don't tell SPEWS and NANAE that... from the way they talk and act, every
> spammer must be in China, Korea, Taiwan, and everywhere else EXCEPT the
> USA.

I know and its a shame :(

> In the above block list comparison webpage, I believe it is listed there?

No, they're not and they shouldn't be listed there. Spamikaze is just
software so everyone can make there own personal rbl and Spamvrij.nl
is just a foundation that tries to make emailmarketing acceptable by
education of companies and marketiers. It also lists companies on
there website that send `spam', but also lists companies that have
changed there policy about emailmarketing..


Reply to: