On 28/05/09 3:09 PM, "Karsten Bräckelmann" <guent...@rudersport.de> wrote:
> I was merely arguing that not all blacklistings are necessarily bad, > just because they happen to be listed in SSC (or any other whitelist for > that matter), as I understood your post. Re-reading what I wrote, I can't see where you got that impression. Please educate me as to how I could have written my post better. I said they were false positive because - they were unique to the BRBL - the reasoning presented behind the listings (compromised host/CANSPAM non-compliance) was not substantiated by listings on other established DNSBLs - if there were a valid reason behind the listing, the removals would have been overturned, like, for instance, when you self-delist from the Sender Score DNSBL or CBL, and your host is still compromised. > Maybe I should have uppercased > all words like ONLY or SOLE like you, so you don't skip them. Yes thanks, since apparently my linguistic skills aren't up to snuff. Damned that degree in English Literature from a second-rate university. > (BTW, the term "suspended" is quite irritating in this context.) I use the nomenclature we have been using for 3 years, developed without public consultation. Enabled = on the whitelist Suspended = removed from the whitelist, live in the client account Disabled = removed from the client account -- Neil Schwartzman Director, Accreditation Security & Standards Certified | Safelist Return Path Inc. 0142002038 The opinions contained herein are my personal stance and may not reflect the viewpoint of Return Path Inc.
