On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sadiq Saif <li...@sadiqs.com> wrote: > On 1/1/2015 13:40, Adam Back wrote: >> nah what am I thinking probably! 1988 if not earlier, 27 years :) >> >> The point is block lists suck, they're always blocking false things, >> and vigilante abusive takes 3x longer to take you off than for you to >> complain or unresponsive etc. > > DNSBLs do occasionally get false positives, this is true. In this case, > it is not really a false positive if spammers are relaying spam through > your insecure server is it? Some of them willfully misclassify.
In the past, one of the blacklist services used to escalate the range of the blacklist surrounding an IP if a provider/ISP did not stop a spammer. The blacklist range was made ever broader to apply pressure to the provider/ISP. I'm not sure if its a current practice. It got so bad with AT&T in the past, that I could not send emails from a US federal agency to my home account because the home account was using one of those blacklists services. So my home account would reject the email from the federal agency because the list was expanded to a Class B or C (IIRC) to apply pressure to AT&T. Jeff _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
