On 09/01/07, Malcolm Staudinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 21:52 +0000, Peter Bowyer wrote: > > > >> On 07/01/07, Kjetil Torgrim Homme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> what's the point? these providers should block port 25 instead. the > >>> providers who don't care to block that port, won't bother to register > >>> their networks in PBL either. > >>> > >> Not true - very many already have. I've promoted zen.spamhaus.org > >> above my other DNSBLs and its not letting a lot through. I check > >> dynablock.njabl.org and dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net later in that order; njabl > >> is getting very few hits now. > >> > > > > okay, perhaps it makes sense, but their claim that it is Policy Based is > > not true. I was surprised to find one of our C-nets in the PBL, this > > was certainly not added by us, and our terms of use do not prohibit the > > use of port 25. > > > > > If you read the PBL FAQ, you'll note that they seeded the list initially > with data from NJABL/dynablock > http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?section=Spamhaus%20PBL > http://www.njabl.org/dynablock.html
Yep, makes sense. And one can distinguish owner-added vs Spamhaus-added results, too. -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
