*sigh* it is sometimes difficult when people email you "off list" and they express an opinion, which should be expressed "on list"
Should RPZ be defined for the sake of "interoperability" The easy answer is : No. Interoperability has limits For example: Most of us will null route abusive rogue traffic Most of use use ethical anti-abuse DNS Blocklists, for DROP (block/deny) email My easy to make point is: Interoperability does have limits. and, to be clear: I am saying that the unethical RPZ exceeds the limit (or crosses the line) in terms of any interoperability argument. Andre On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 06:01:55 +0200 ox <an...@ox.co.za> wrote: > On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 15:30:02 +0000 > Richard Clayton <rich...@highwayman.com> wrote: > > In message , ox <an...@ox.co.za> writes > > >The people that are actively using RPZ to "protect" their users are > > >finding that it is a piss poor method and that their users are as > > >compromized as any other non RPZ user pool. > > > > that's a testable hypothesis -- what evidence do you have for it ? > > > > Hindsight is always perfect. > > SpamCop is a DNS blocklist (which by the way IS and Ethical Anti > Abuse Tool) it is reactive (after it has happened) abuse reporting > system, with statistics. > > https://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=map > > Anyone can compare the abuse range volumes with that of a provider > they know to be using PRZ > > I am not at liberty to discuss my own knowledge and personal > experience in terms of specific companies. > > Andre >
