Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> above.net has (fairly recently, as far as I can tell), set up their
> networks to block any IP traffic to sites that are listed in the RBL.
Hasn't this been the case for eons? I thought above.net was one of the
very early subscribers to the RBL BGP feed. I don't believe this is
anything new.
> In fact, today I had to remote access into work to access a web site of
> a company to unsubscribe from a mailing list I was subscribed to at
> home, because the mailing list was on an RBLed site, and I couldn't
> access them via any protocol from home. I know that company pretty well,
> and it doesn't spam, except under very tight-@ss definitions of spam,
> but to put it bluntly, one or two tight-@ss can get you loaded into the
> RBL, and then you're in deep.
Have you contacted the RBL folks and asked why that site is listed, or are
you speculating? In my experience, they're incredibly conservative about
who they're willing to list.
> I'm not thrilled at this. I think blocking ALL traffic based on RBL data
> is excessive (I'd be unhappy if they blocked SMTP, but I can live with
> that), especially since the RBL is sometimes unreliable, and their
> definition of bad-stuff isn't universally accepted by a long shot. I've
> brought up these issues with my ISP, since I this is a well-intentioned
> wrong-think.
I personally consider it a very significant feature offered by above.net,
and for this reason I would actively seek out connectivity via above.net
rather than other providers because of this policy (as well as other, very
intelligent policies that they've set about spam and network abuse).
So opinions differ here, predictably.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
