It _does_ mean that someone to whom email is important had better do
due diligence in selecting DNSBLs - just as someone to whom a car is
important had better do due diligence in selecting a mechanic [...]
I agree with that. But easier still is to setup your own spam traps
and run your own
Furthermore, you appear to think that all DNSBLs are reactive in
nature. This is not true; there are at least a few DNSBLs that
proactively list large indistinguishable pool addresses. In at
least one case, the pools are submitted to them by the providers
that run the pools. Using such a
The Spamhaus XBL and Spamhaus PBL are pretty useful in denying
connections from botnets. You should try them - in the arsenal of
spam-fighting tools, they are the probably most effective ones.
I've heard this about Spamhaus' lists. One wonders how it is
possible they are so useful and
In fact, the people who use these DNSBL blacklists do so only for a
short time, until they get burned and stop using them. That's what
happens routinely with SORBS.
If SORBS is your idea of a best-of-breed DNSBL, I can understand your
scorn. But it's not. You want to see a DNSBL done right,
The fact that [DNSBLs] are widely used is sad, not a justification
for standardization.
True. The justification is not simply that they are widely used; it
is that they are widely used, they are often done wrong, they are of
tremendous value when done right, and of actively negative value
[Keith Moore]
The fact that [DNSBLs] are widely used is sad, not a justification
for standardization.
True. The justification is not simply that they are widely used; it is
that they are widely used, they are often done wrong, they are of
tremendous value when done right, and of actively
to - in the world as it is,
rather than the world as you, me, and a tiny minority of other people
would like it to be.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
