>> See the notes at DSBL: http://dsbl.org/listing?80.142.228.8 They report
>> it as a verified singlehop relay.
>>
Since the 80.142.228.8 is definitely a dialup-host from a big german ISP for customers with dynamic IPs it should not be listed as singlehop in the RBLs. I am sure, the spammer is up-and-away from that IP. But that is more an RBL-issue than a issue of SA.
Why is it that should dialup nodes be exempt?
In this case, that IP had an open relay running on it long enough for it to be abused, reported, and then verified.
The idea of exempting dialup nodes has come up before, but I'm sorry, I for one disagree.
A verified spam-source IP is a verified spam-source IP. Until the ISP identifies and corrects the problem and reports back to the RBLs, I think it's quite reasonable to list each IP address that has been verified as a spam source. After all, until it's fixed you know this open relay is going to keep dialing in. It's going to keep getting IP addresses from a single dialup pool, which means it WILL come back to that IP.
If the node really is a dialup, perhaps t-dialin.net should consider restricting inbound tcp/25, or policing their networks.
In any event, the ISP can request a removal. The fact that the IP is still in the RBL indicates that t-dialin hasn't been addressing the issue.
