Re: More sorbs blacklisting
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 06:06:54PM -0400, Micah Anderson 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.
unfortunately, experience over the years has shown that being willing to
accept collateral damage is the ONLY reliable way to get spam-friendly
upstreams to do something about their spamming customers. when their
non-spamming customers start complaining and/or leaving and it actually
costs them money THEN they start thinking that it's a problem they
should do something to fix.
sucks, but that's the way it is.
from what i've seen, spamhaus start off blacklisting the smallest
possible net block and only start escalating that when the ISP takes no
action. that seems a reasonable and responsible approach to me.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: