Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016, at 15:22, Michael Peddemors wrote: > On 16-08-30 12:43 PM, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > > We could use one to call out the location of colo servers that should never > > be connecting on port 443, for instance. > > Um, I can think of a reason why that might not be

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

om: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of Michael Peddemors Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 3:23 PM To: mailop@mailop.org Subject: Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need? On 16-08-30 12:43 PM, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > We could use one to call out the location of

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

d.rouss...@nnx.com> > Aan: mailop@mailop.org > Verzonden: Dinsdag 30 augustus 2016 14:37:45 > Onderwerp: Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need? > > Le Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:08:21AM -0400, Neil Schwartzman [n...@cauce.org] > a écrit: > [...] > > I saw, and con

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

> Aan: mailop@mailop.org Verzonden: Dinsdag 30 augustus 2016 14:37:45 Onderwerp: Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need? Le Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:08:21AM -0400, Neil Schwartzman [n...@cauce.org] a écrit: [...] > I saw, and continue to see to this day, error in reporting from *

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

Rob McEwen wrote: But, otherwise, I'm having a hard time working up the motivation to spend any more time trying change your mind about those things I said with which you disagreed--because the world would be a worse place if SORBS tried to be an invaluement clone, AND a worse place if

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

I used to run a whitelist, and it was predicated upon FBL reports as one metric for list purity. I saw, and continue to see to this day, error in reporting from *all* such sources (they are myriad, probably numbering in a couple of dozen these days), they are no more endemic to AOL than any

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

e > > Deliverability Management > MailPlus B.V. Netherlands (ESP) > > - Oorspronkelijk bericht - > Van: "Anne P. Mitchell" <amitch...@isipp.com> > Aan: "Michael Wise via mailop" <mailop@mailop.org> > Verzonden: Maandag 29 augustus 201

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

ustus 2016 19:08:58 Onderwerp: Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need? > using Barracuda's RBL for high scoring, and not for outright blocking. I think that in this day and age, this is true for *any* list - black-, white-, reputation- (yes, even ours). Whitelists can also h

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

On 8/29/2016 8:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: The point being what is an FP? Something blocked that was blocked by the RBL for a completely valid reason, that I wouldn't want to block, or something that the RBL blocked that did not match the policy they publish that they operate by?

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

On 8/29/2016 10:17 AM, Mathias Ullrich wrote: In my opinion and given, that we are talking about UCE, if it's unsolicited mail, the recipient shouldn't get the email in the first place, and if that's the case, the "report junk" button is the correct one. If you are talking about one to one

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

On 16-08-29 05:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: Don't you just hate these threads that can start arguments on what is an FP and what is not? :P You know what we could use more of? https://www.intra2net.com/en/support/antispam/ https://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/Blacklists_Compared.html There

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

My impression of it has always been that it is a "pay to get whitelisted" system, but not a "pay to stay whitelisted" one. IOW, you can be booted off at any time, and can't buy your way back on - at least, not w/ the same domain. But that is only my external impression, I have no direct first-hand

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

> using Barracuda's RBL for high scoring, and not for outright blocking. I think that in this day and age, this is true for *any* list - black-, white-, reputation- (yes, even ours). Whitelists can also have false positives - even pay for play ones, because while full-on spammers may not pay

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

> On 29 Aug 2016, at 14:45, Bryan Vest wrote: > > This may have been brought up before and if there is already a group please > point me to it, but we need a study group/governing body/RFC to at least put > out suggestions on RBL structure. RFC 6471 - Overview of Best

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

On 8/29/2016 10:26 AM, Eric Henson wrote: Rob posted in the thread above that emailreg.org is legit. fwiw, here is what I said about emailreg.org, back in 2009: - Someone I have great respect for has vouched to me (off-list)

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

Le Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 04:17:05PM +0200, Mathias Ullrich [mathias.ullr...@optivo.de] a écrit: > In my opionion and given, that we are talking about UCE, if it's > unsolicited mail, the recipient shouldn't get the email in the first > place, and if that's the case, the "report junk" button is the

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

web.com> Aan: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <ops.li...@gmail.com> Cc: mailop@mailop.org Verzonden: Maandag 29 augustus 2016 16:26:09 Onderwerp: Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need? The relationship between Barracuda and EmailReg.org isn’t very clear. At the ver

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

On 8/29/2016 9:58 AM, Eric Henson wrote: don’t have false positives: Barracuda RBL Barracuda's RBL is a very good list... for high scoring... or for outright blocking for somewhat small hosters. But if an ISP or hoster has more than several thousand mailboxes AND is even moderately

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

Does Barracuda still operate that paid whitelist? --srs > On 29-Aug-2016, at 7:28 PM, Eric Henson wrote: > > I’ve done lots of RBL testing, for years, and the only RBLs that I’m using > are the ones that are effective and don’t have false positives: Barracuda RBL > and

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

: Monday, August 29, 2016 8:46 AM To: Bryan Vest Cc: mailop@mailop.org Subject: Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need? Most of them have about the same reach as some random guy tweeting just how bad a movie sucks. Nobody other than his girlfriend, and maybe his family dog, are likely

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

On 8/29/2016 8:45 AM, Bryan Vest wrote: We have built a very complex outbound mail verification system but we cant stop 100% of the spam 100% of the time so some does slip out. Good for you that you are working hard to prevent outbound spam. In addition to using RBLs, here are a couple of

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

Most of them have about the same reach as some random guy tweeting just how bad a movie sucks. Nobody other than his girlfriend, and maybe his family dog, are likely to read it. Now if nytimes, Rogerebert.com etc write reviews panning it, the movie will flop So - those are like Spamhaus and

[mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

I have been lurking here for a couple years but have really not had any information worth jumping into a conversation. But the question in my subject is really burning me up these days. As far as my last general check there are at least 200 RBL's that could potentially be used by any mail admin