At 11:00 AM 12/23/2002 +0100, L.Willms wrote:
Many do use them not wisely. The blacklists which I know, differentiateTaking the differences into account is a good practice; it allows the sender to understand why their e-mail is being rejected and they can take that issue up with the rejecting service and/or their ISP. However, each of the different reasons should be treated the same way - rejection. It does not matter to me if the source is tagged as an open relay, a confirmed spam source, a dial-up spam source, or a dynamic source in violation of TOS. For this last class, there is a RBL that lists only dynamic addresses of access providers (whether dial-up, cable modem, DSL, ISDN, or otherwise) who have a TOS that forbids the running of SMTP servers. It does not matter if these addresses have ever sent a single piece of spam; the mere fact that they are running in violation of their TOS is reason enough to reject them. This covers a lot of dynamic addresses from many of the large ISPs and may very well include several or many Sambar users.
bewetween "Open relay", "Dialin spam source" and "confirmed spam source",
answering with different addresses for DNS queries to indicate these
differences. Not to take these differences into account, i.e. treating a "Open
relay" the same way as a "Confirmed spam source" is bad practice.
I have the impression that some accept any denounciation by a spare timeThis is an issue between the blacklist provider and the blacklist subscribers. If the blacklist uses bad practices, it is up to the subscribers to either demand a better service or stop using the blacklist in favor of another.
Pinkerton who was annoyed by some email. E.g. the listserver of the well known
Topica service was flagged by one of the blacklisters.
Agreed. Anyone considering using a blacklist should very well understand that list's policies, procedures, and reputation. Haphazard selection of a blacklist without research is a bad practice. Selecting a blacklist as the result of an informed decision is a matter of good business.When using these services, one should procede with with extreme care, according to my experiences, and not treat any suspicion as a valid conviction.
As previously mentioned, people are sick and tired of spam and the pitiful excuses for ISPs that are not proactive in their responsibilities. The "nice" method has been tried over and over; attempts to communicate and work with some ISPs has failed. So, now some admins are taking a hard line approach and are rejecting e-mail outright. Until these ISPs start losing subscribers because of their lax practices, they have no incentive to work on their problem.An example of bad usage of blacklisters is the domain hosting this list which blocks mail from legitimate subscribers to this list based on spurious grounds -- I myself have been victim of this, because two of the thousands of IP addresses assigned randomly by my ISP to its dial-in customers was listed by one of those blacklisters.
And one must remember - e-mail is privately owned. No one has the right to e-mail anyone - it is a privilege. And everyone has the right to reject e-mail from anyone they please, with or without the sender's knowledge or permission and for whatever reason they so choose.
-Jeff
-------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe please go to http://www.sambar.ch/list/
