On 9/16/2017 4:36 PM, Chris wrote: > I'm also seeing issues with ISIPP which is in 20_dnsbl_tests.cf. I've > attached the message I sent them as well as their reply. Another issue I > noticed with ISIPP is Sep 16 12:09:38 localhost named[1284]: host unreachable > resolving 'ns1.ns.isipp.com/A/IN': 67.227.190.38#53 Sep 16 12:09:38 > localhost named[1284]: host unreachable resolving 'ns2.ns.isipp.com/A/IN': > 67.227.190.38#53
I apologize profusely for this... we (fairly) recently switched our colo and while everything was running as it should have been when we set up, it wasn't until Chris contacted us directly that we were aware that this issue had raised its head. To the best of my knowledge this has been fixed - *please* let me know if it has not (or, indeed, if anyone ever has any other problems, or even just questions!) To address another question, we do not distinguish between queries from static versus dynamic IPs in terms of who can query our zones. As for whether the ISIPP rules should remain in the default ruleset: When we first designed our service - which despite that senders are our customers, was created *for receivers* (remember that I came from MAPS - we *love* taking down spammers), we took great pains to ensure that our data response codes in our zones were easy for SA to use - in fact Craig Hughes and I sat down together and architected it specifically with SA in mind. I knew that our design would be copied (and indeed it was by the other email sender certification company) and we didn't really care that it would be copied, because it meant more spam being able to be caught, with fewer false positives, which, at the end of the day, is what everybody (other than spammers) wants. Obviously I think it would be a shame if a system that was specifically designed with SA in mind was no longer included in the default SA rules; if there is tweaking that needs to be done - new codes created, or heck, even a new SA-specific zone created, we'd be more than happy to do that - that's *always* been how we do things - whatever makes it easiest for the *receiving* community, with whom, at the end of the day, our allegiance lays. ;-) Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP) Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cyber Committee Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
