Re: 'dialup-ranges?' Re: greylisting DNSBL hosts?
[This message has also been posted to linux.debian.isp.]
In article <2NbfK-7WV-1@gated-at.bofh.it>,
Kilian Krause wrote:
>
> --=-7xaDfH7u0PeZExyfuM0z
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Hi Cameron,
>
> Am Fr, den 08.10.2004 schrieb cls@truffula.sj.ca.us um 18:07:
>> [This message has also been posted.]
>> In article <2N0u0-7Xz-1@gated-at.bofh.it>, Kilian Krause wrote:
>> >=20
>> > --=3D-+rYNsJkiW3Vja8Xh+ktl
>> > Content-Type: text/plain
>> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>=20
>> Please don't do that. Quoted-printable is broken.
That is, it makes your messages more difficult to read.
It injects syntax errors into commands and config
file entries that sometimes appear in forums like
this one. It even breaks URLs.
If you can't shut it off, file a bug.
Email and netnews are plain text media.
Client software that breaks it is monkeywrenching
a well thought out design, out of ignorance and
negligence. Microsft does it all the time, but
we're supposed to show more respect for our
community.
> how come you quote <2N0u0-7Xz-1@gated-at.bofh.it>, but my mail was
> "<[🔎] 1097231985.18184.19.camel@ganymede>" as can be seen at:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-isp/2004/10/msg00034.html ?
I'm reading this forum as a newsgroup, on a commercial
netnews provider. (It wouldn't make much sense to subscribe
to it as an email list.) The news company's email to news
gateway changes the message IDs. I think it's supposed to
poison the spam address harvesters.
>>=20
=20. Quoted printable is an abomination.
>> I'd like to know which DNSBL knows where "the dialup-ranges of ISPs"
>> are. It seems to me the biggest and worst ISPs withhold that
>> information as some kind of trade secret. I've been collecting the
>> ranges at SBC and the rest, one at a time, for years, as we receive
>> spam from them. Never found any DNSBL that tagged more than
>> about 20% of them. Admins at Verizon and Charter have each told me
>> they don't even have a reliable list of their own dynamically
>> assigned IP ranges for internal use.
>
> Well, nobody said the coverage is 100%, but are you sure it's that bad?
There are dozens of well known, popular DNSBLs. There are
perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of private or
unadvertised DNSBLs. I've tried the ones I can find that try
to map the "dynamic IP" space, because it correlates to the
consumer Microsoft boxes with spambot infections, and none of them
has been worth using. That's why I asked *which one* you thought
might provide even *usable* coverage for this purpose.
It would save me a lot of work.
> So do you still reckon that DNSBL are too far out for using them as a
> greylisting success probability predictor?
"Graylisting" isn't SMTP. I'm not ready to give upon SMTP.
I'd rather boycott spammer-friendly ISPs until they are forced
to choose between honest people and spam criminals.
Cameron
Reply to: