Re: More sorbs blacklisting

[Micah Anderson <micah@riseup.net>]

Michael Loftis wrote:
> 
> 
> --On June 19, 2006 6:06:54 PM -0400 Micah Anderson <micah@riseup.net>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Since we are talking bad blacklisting... we just got blacklisted by
>> Spamhaus because they felt as if the people providing us our upstream
>> connection weren't dealing with the spammers on their network to their
>> satisfaction. This meant a overly-broad block which included our class C
>> (they blocked a /20), even though we demonstrated to them that we do not
>> have a problem and actually have spam policies that we act aggressively
>> to enforce. Fortunately, this has been resolved, but I am surprised that
>> Spamhaus doesn't mind taking on some collateral damage.
> 
> BZZZZZZZT!  Spamhaus, et al, block *NOTHING*.  They publish lists of
> information (not necessarily facts), and, in some cases yes, opinion. 

Yeah, thanks for pointing out the obvious, I know that. I didn't say
that Spamhaus blocked us, I said that they blacklisted us.

You are correct to be so literal, however, I also know that quite a
large number of people use spamhaus (and even worse SpamCop) in their
RBLs, so when spamhaus adds someone it results in damage, regardless of
whose fault it is. Had spamhaus not done this, it would not have
happened. Had the mail server admins not used spamhaus this also would
not have happened. Mail admins wouldn't add spamhaus if they didn't
respect it, because spamhaus has managed to convince a lot of people
that they should be used, and a lot of people have agreed. As soon as
you add an RBL, you are turning over the blocking work to someone else
to handle.

micah