|
I think this is good. Just think about the issues that you would have
if Verizon indiscriminately blocked you. We have heard a bunch of
stories about AOL and their spam reporting mechanism blacklisting
servers that are just merely forwarding to them. If these companies
blacklist providers like myself, I would probably lose business. The practice of blocking spammers or otherwise aggressive hosts from sending E-mail has never resulted in a successful lawsuit. However this is not the first time that a blacklisting entity has been sued or threatened for indiscriminate behavior. Here's a link to an archive of documents concerning Pavenet.net threatening to sue DSBL  http://dsbl.org/legal/pavenet/ DSBL takes pride in the fact that they have reached 5 million IP's listed, but they have done this by never expiring a listing, creating a system that is virtually impossible to delist a clean IP with a reverse DNS entry that doesn't belong to the user, and aggressive scanning techniques. In this case it appears that pavenet.net was being improperly listed, and it had been so multiple times. If you are an ISP and allow your own IP's to relay through your server without authentication, then any user can list your server on DSBL without any special knowledge. I've also sent no less than 6 requests to SBL in the last year asking them to stop indiscriminately blocking Chinese and Korean blocks of IP's, one even as large as a /14 (that's 4 class B's), because of zombie traffic, or limited Web site hosting by spammers, and no response to requests to clean this stuff up. The net result is that SBL becomes very prone to false positives on Asian traffic if you scan on all hops for that test. They have even taken to "collateral damage" by expanding their blacklisting to cover an ISP's own mail server when there is extremely limited abuse happening on their networks. This tactic seems to be increasing the practice. Some of this IP space has been listed for a couple of years now, and it presents a lot of challenges for my clients that do manufacturing, and one even has offices in China. I like both SBL and DSBL for what they do right, but I could do without the zealotry. SBL tells me to complain to the Chinese and Korean ISP's so that they will fix their problems, but I think that this guy that is suing Verizon got it right by taking the fight to the blacklist owner that is doing so indiscriminately, or in some cases to actually damage a business for only indirect involvement with the abuse. SBL seems to think that I am going to spend my time getting someone that doesn't even speak my language to fix their issue as if I have anything to do with it. I didn't volunteer to be an enforcer of their loose standards for listings. Here's a sample of what appears to be mostly residential IP space listed in SBL that have caused issues for me, most of it for a single customer. SBL19306 - 222.64.0.0/16China and Korea definitely have issues, and clearly don't mind the spamming (which is leagal to do in China their country as long as it goes outside of the country, and there is no law against hosting the spam sites there), but they are punishing businesses with no association to the activity and little or no other choice for connectivity. Matt Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This kinda scares me. Could this potentially set a precedence that companies can be sued for blocking mail? i.e. You get sued for blocking mail. We all block some legitimate mail at some point.. Thats the nature of the game. -- ===================================================== MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ ===================================================== |
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Verizon Faced With Lawsuits Ove... Matt
- [Declude.JunkMail] Should have been whitelisted Robert Grosshandler
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Should have been white... Andy Schmidt
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Should have been w... Robert Grosshandler
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Verizon Faced With Lawsuit... Don Brown
