Re: Which Spam Block List to use for a network?
Russell Coker <email@example.com> said on Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:54:55 +1000:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:04, Adam Funk <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 June 2004 07:50, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > By far the most false-positive entries I have had are from
> > > postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org and abuse.rfc-ignorant.org. The
> > That's because rfc-ignorant.org's lists aren't about spamming. They are
> > about domains that fail to conform to certain RFCs. (Although I
> > disagree with their listing of *.uk on the grounds that the UK registry
> > allows people to withhold their private contact details from whois.)
Haven't they always allowed to be fake anyway? Isn't that how spammers
get away with spamming in the US?
> They also list all of Australia for the same reason as listing the UK. It
> seems that whois is not worth much any more.
And all of our national monopoly^Wcarrier are in some other
blacklists, because they are not so prompt in dealing with
spam. Unfortunately, what does every ISP use as an upstream?
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.