** Private ** wrote: > On 6/12/07, Jochem wrote: >> >> I choose my ISPs more carefully then that. > > You hope.
I'm sure (being on first name basis with the CEO or CTO helps). >> That is the point of subscribing to a blacklist, isn't it? > > The point of a blacklist is to block offending emails, i.e. spam, but allow > legitimate mail through. This list does not accomplish that objective. There are many DNS RBLs that have the objective you described, apews just is not one of them. It has a different objective and it is actually prety good at achieving that objective. >> It won't. NANA* is not for complaining, it is for getting technical support >> to get delisted. The target audience is the abuse officers of ISPs, not >> end-users. > > It got posted. Were the responses helpful? >> Considering the significant similarity between apews and the former spews I >> am betting the impact of apews will become as big as the impact of spews. > > Whatever, I complained to the Federal Trade Commission. Let them talk to the > Feds about it. You complained to the FTC about a Brazilian website hosted in Canada? > No, no, no. What is happening is more like a situation where no one from the > state of Georgia can send mail to anyone subscribed to a watch list Is that subscription voluntary? > because > someone sent a mail bomb from a post office in the state of Georgia and the > people who run the watch list decided to blacklist the entire state. Is the policy applied based on the blacklist dictated by the blacklist or is that voluntarily chosen by the operator of the mail server? > Definitely a restraint on trade. So what you are saying is that I am not allowed to inform myself on the opinion of other people on the reputation of certain areas of the internet and base my decision on the response? >> I have seen it a lot with certain ISPs. It was always resolved by >> switching to a reputable ISP. > > So two of the biggest ISPs in the country are disreputable? By the definition applied by apews they are. I agree only partially with their definition so I don't recommend to block based on an apews listing. If you want to use apews, make sure you run it after your greylisting and use it to increase the spam score of messages. > Do you > understand the nature of the problem? People zombie the computers of the > unaware on these big ISPs and use their systems to send out spam. You > believe that Soviet-style collective punishment is the appropriate remedy > for that problem? That problem is not related to the problem apews tries to attack. For the problem you mention other DNS RBLs exist that list every single network allocation to end-users and block those. When you run into such a DNS RBL the message will tell you to use the SMTP server provided by your ISP and that server will not be listed. (If you look in the apews FAQ you will see that they recommend applying apews *after* applying such a DNS RBL.) The problem apews tries to address is that spammers will naturally migrate to the ISPs that have the weakest enforcement policies. It is the ISPs that don't respond to spam complaints and let the problem fester that get listed on apews and for obvious reasons their listings will quickly escalate to all of their IP space. >> A few lines above this you wrote you wanted to stop spam, and here you are >> asking us to propagate a chain email. You seem to have a rather flexible >> definition of spam. > > Look up the definition of chain letter. The funny thing is that I actually did. Not because of the definition, but since I am not a native speaker I had to check if there was a hyphen between chain and email and the best place to look happens to be wikipedia. >> I would hope so, maybe the ISPs that get blacklisted will get a bit more >> careful about signing "pink contracts" and get a bit more proactive about >> responding to complaints. > > So you are OK with some anonymous shadow group dictating who you can do > business with? That is simply not what is happening. When you send email your email server connects to the recipients email server. There is nobody in between. Nobody but the operators of both servers decide whether email gets exchanged. And yes, I respect the right of mail server operators to inform themselves of the reputation of certain areas of the internet and base decisions on that. And I trust the operators of DNS RBLs to either correct any listings that are not according to the stated policy or the community to find out about wrongfully listed IPs and make sufficient noise about it to effectively kill the list. Jochem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| CF 8 â Scorpio beta now available, easily build great internet experiences â Try it now on Labs http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=labs_adobecf8_beta Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:236600 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
