How can any MX admin interpret the huge volumes of long-standing, current, and increasing crap spewing from these ever-enlarging networks as an indication that the networks operators are "reasonably" policing their networks?? He simply cannot.
So you stick to your previous statement that AOL and Australia and the United Kingdom and Mexico should all be blocked?
I never said that, straw man. I posted a list of a count of IPs per domain.tld that were greylisted.
You're the only one I've seen who is reading ASTA as wimping out with "let's warn these longstanding, egregious violators just now, and then wait for many months to see if anything changes, before we block".
... and you're the only one I've seen who is reading ASTA as saying [1] blocking ISPs definitely should occur
If they don't secure their networks, they get blocked, is exactly what ASTA is threatening.
, [2] that it should occur very fast
These networks have been doing this for months, years, and it's getting worse. Why wait months and months to take action? ASTA itself is extremely late into the fray.
, [3] that it should encompass responsible ISPs (AOL) and large countries
I didn't say that. ipt.aol.com is AOL's subscriber network that spews spam direct to MXs, and there is no risk in blocking IPs with PTR hostnames under ipt.aol.com. You extrapolite that to ALL of AOL is YOUR problem, not what I said.
, [4] the goal of ASTA was to warn ISPs that they are going to be blocked any day now (the real goal, in my reading, was to push the ISPs to police themselves).
We all know the self-policing doesn't work, hasn't worked, and that history and current situation is an excellent predictor that self-policing won't work in the future. Otherwise, ASTA would not have come together to advocate blocking networks that spew. ASTA may, in effect, end up being nothing other than a group that spews motherhood, common-sense banalities that we all know anyway, and never blocks anybody. If ASTA doesn't threaten to block some of these widely known, egregiously spewing networks in the next 60 days, and then not take the lead in actually blocking, then ASTA will be worthless.
"Your MX, your policies"
That's Len talking, not ASTA talking.
I don't talk for ASTA, and "your MX, your policies" is true for every MX admin.
You came up with a list of domains that you pretended were not "ASTA compliant"
To repeat: "I posted a list of a count of IPs per domain.tld that were greylisted." Very clear, very simple. I pretended nothing.
, and implied that according to ASTA, it's fine to block them immediately.
Your MX, your policies. So any can block whenever you want, with or without ASTA. Whether ASTA will ever get around to blocking verizon, attbi, rr, or any other network remains to be seen.
Now you're admitting that it isn't ASTA, it's just ultra-strict
"ultra-strict" is you definition.
anti-spam settings that you are advocating ("Your MX, your policies" is not ASTA).
We blocked 2.5 to 5 million msgs with greylisting in 5 days. It was fantastically successful, the vast majority from subscriber networks. How can anybody, except you, argue with that?
The sense of what ASTA is all about is extremely clear.
but you're telling people that they should block AOL and all of Australia
I'm telling no one to do anything. I posted a list, period.
... and implied that people following ASTA's recommendation should block all those networks.
My list is evidence of EXACTLY the unpoliced, unsecured networks that ASTA is targeting, and, yes, per ASTA recommendation, ASTA, or anybody else, intends to block them.
You may not be telling, but you're urging.
Is there some crime in urging action against the insanity of these networks?
ASTA is urging networks to clean up, or be blocked. I can take any position I want, thanks.
You'd be surprised how many people you influenced into using your "subscriber networks" list that were very upset when they found out the legitimate E-mail that it was blocking.
Go ahead, surprise me with real evidence, instead of emtpy FUD.
I recommended running the PTR filtering in "warn" mode for a period to identify any legit, habitual IPs, and then if the results are positive for the MX in question, go to full reject mode. That's a sensible implementation plan to be followed for any new filter.
... and your IP provider is #3 on the list (GO-2-EUROPE 24.227.147.224/28, or rrcs-sw-24-227-147-227.biz.rr.com, ).
I don't run an MTA from that subnetk. But, as I said, if rr's horrible performance running their network gets my subnet blocked, rr will hear about at great volume from me within minutes. My immediate threat will be cancel my $$$contract for rr's non-compliance to deliver network access.
So? I thought lower numbers were better
what you think is irrelevant to my report.
(and best was not being no your blacklist).
What "blacklist" are you inventing? My report was not a blacklist.
You've wriggled yourself into a totally nutty position, using false claims, baseless "gothca" BS, straw man positions that you try to stick to me, trying to denigrate what was nothing but a report of extremely successful greylisting that I shared with the Imail list.
And of course, you post no supportable numbers of your own about these networks ASTA is addressing, and prefer to spew FUD against my hard numbers.
Put up some hard numbers, or STFU.
Len
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
