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

Re: Branden's mail policies

Simon Huggins wrote:
> I've not had any form of reply though and feel this is a problem the
> project needs to address if the leader is going to continue to send mail
> =66rom a blacklisted host and not care about doing so.

Blocking based solely on blacklists (instead of using them as one
part in a score system) is a questionable mail defence practice
with a far too high loss risk, in my opinion. Any false-positive
listing and you bounce valid email.  Blocking based on lists
of addresses like the DULs is silly.  Any ISP doing so should
be fixed or ditched as soon as you find out.

I don't quite agree with Branden's page that it is entirely
the blocker's fault - there's some blame with his ISP, or maybe
his ISP's relations with abuse.net and friends. As some have
mentioned, it's not always realistic (or even possible) for some
small users to change ISPs, although I don't know if that's the
case here.

My home systems have been with large ISPs and small ISPs,
sometimes sending direct and sometimes using relays, but they
still appear on blacklists occasionally. Several blacklisters
seem rather random, mildly put.  When I held a society post and
I hit a blacklist for an "official" email, I didn't hoop-jump
to resend the message. I did find a way to send some message,
letting the recipient know why I didn't reply.  No-one seemed
to have a problem with that, although I'm fairly sure that one
never repaired their mailserver.

So, I support Branden's general approach, but think it would be
better to include some more active announcement. I think it's
unreasonable to demand post-holders work to accommodate daft
mailserver configurations.

MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

Reply to: