>and since SBC is obviously not an ethical > alternative, Whets using SBC as a provider got to do with ethics?
Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phillip B. Holmes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:47 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > Mathew, > > Correction there.. > > .8 is no longer used and is basically empty. > .6 has a higher # of false positives than the rest. Not many, but if you > want to play it safe, do not use .6. > > And that is correct: > Cox = Cox Cable > > It is my home connection and since SBC is obviously not an ethical > alternative, Cox is the lesser of all evils. > > Best Regards, > > <Sr.Consultant /> > Phillip B. Holmes > Media Resolutions Inc. > Macromedia Alliance Partner > http://www.mediares.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101 > 972-889-0201 |Ext. 101 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Matthew Bramble > > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:44 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > > > > > > .8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on > > a system > > because a network administrator saw fit to complain. I would > > think that > > most of these organizations are bandwidth providers with some sort of > > firewall that got tripped by the testing. Spammers don't > > rely on open > > relays in their own netblocks. I don't see any reason to use > > this test. > > > > .6 is an example of overzealousness and it is defeatist in > > nature. Less > > people will rely on such lists if in fact the list provider starts > > blocking millions of legitimate users. It ignores false > > positives and > > becomes more of a political statement in effect, and that > > doesn't help > > me much. My users don't care if SORBS is blocking Cox, they > > just want > > their E-mail from a friend or business associate. > > > > Unfortunately this goes both ways. Cox recently started blocking > > outgoing SMTP traffic over port 25 from at least some of > > their markets. > > They did this in order to combat the spam coming from their > > users. The > > net result is that they might find their way off of some > > blacklists, but > > E-mail providers are now limited in the solutions they can provide to > > their customers since users must use Cox's own SMTP server. > > > > I wouldn't call that a win. Unfortunately it seems that > > there are many > > overzealous lists out there, and my thinking is that this is > > due to what > > compels someone to start offering a blacklist for > > free...they're fed up > > and they're not going to take it anymore! > > > > Matt > > > > > > Eje Gustafsson wrote: > > > > >If someone demands they not get listed then they deserve to get > > >blacklisted because OBVIOUSLY they have something to hide. > > > > > >.6 is List of hosts that have been noted as sending > > > spam/UCE/UBE to the admins of SORBS. This > > > zone also contains netblocks of spam supporting > > > service providers, this could be for providing > > > websites, DNS or drop boxes for a spammer. Spam > > > supporters are added on a 'third strike and you are > > > out' basis, where the third spam will cause the > > > supporter to be blocked. > > > > > >.8 List of hosts demanding they are never tested by > > > SORBS. > > > > > >So of course someone that host spammers will demand they never be > > >tested. Almost should be a case for immediate blocking IMO. > > > > > >Either way with declude there is not reason to directly > > block anything > > >just use a weighted system where each test add to the total weight. > > > > > >Best regards, > > > Eje Gustafsson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >The Family Entertainment Network http://www.fament.com > > >Phone : 620-231-7777 Fax : 620-231-4066 > > > - Your Full Time Professionals - > > >Mikrotik OEM dealer - Online Store http://www.fament.net/ > > > > > > > > > > --- > > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > > (http://www.declude.com)] > > > > --- > > This E-mail came from the > > Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an > > E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe > > Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > > http://www.mail-archive.com. > > --- > > [This E-mail scanned for > > viruses by Declude Virus] > > > > > > > > > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > > --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
