Re: OT: Martin Krafft - mail bouncing
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 12:32:38PM -0300, Christoph Simon wrote:
> Unfortunately, there are many private victims for false positives of
> RBL-like lists, according to them, mostly due to the lack of response
> from our ISPs. As a matter of fact, I do have a fixed IP but that is
> taken out of a range of IPs mostly used for dynamic assignement. To
> make it worse, the ISP denies delegation of the reverse
> resolution.
I know lots of small businesses in Brazil that are in the exact same
situation...
> The problem is the administration of these RBL lists,
> which either tell you that any kind of communication with them will be
> published on usenet (including valid email addresses), as they
> presuppose that everybody in their list _is_ a spammer, or just don't
> give any chance to contact them. Although I can't contribute anything
> constructive to the above discussion, I do want to use this context to
> apeal these list's users, trying to convince their maintainers, that
> false positives do hurt people in many ways and that not being able to
> tell them, does'nt really help.
I think it depends on how you choose the lists you're going to use. For
example, ordb only lists open relays, and inclusion/exclusion is
automated. There is also relays.visi.com, which seems to be very
conservative.
I've had luck with proxies.relays.monkeys.com, too (no false positives at
all), but I can't say they're "conservative".
But I decided not to block dialup... I'd be blocking some mail servers
I've configured myself! :-)
J.
Reply to: