> > whether you like it or not, anyone can block email on their own servers > using whatever criteria they choose. you do NOT have a right to have > your mail accepted. nobody does. that choice rests with the recipient > server.
Yeah... except many End-users don't know / not aware of what RBLs the ISP they are using uses, nor in many cases do they have a choice. So, I'm bringing the fact to light that many end-users are missing out on legitimate email from Asia. > you have two choices: > > 1. explain to your ISP why they shouldn't be supporting spammers and get > them to enforce an anti-spam policy. > > 2. move to an ISP which doesn't support spammers. if enough people did > this and told them why, your current ISP might finally acquire a clue > and change their ways. AND I REPEAT (since you didn't choose to reply to this): ------------------------------------------- http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=rackspace&as_ugroup=news.admin.net-ab use.email reveals 2620 messages concerning rackspace spam AND http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=telstra&as_ugroup=news.admin.net-abus e.email reveals 4260 messages concerning Telstra spam. What do you think now? ------------------------------------------- Why are the above two ISPs/hosting companies not in the Osirusoft RBL then, comapred to iAdvatage's paltry hundred or something? > > iAdvantage provides bandwidth to many hundreds of large corporations > > in HK... overall i'd say many thousands of websites are hosted there > > (mostly Chinese probably). So with one fell swoop all these sites can > > no longer send email properly. Can we say collateral damage to the > > max? > > so what? telstra and ozemail (the latter is owned by uunet) here in > australia host thousands of legitimate businesses, and actually show > some signs of pursuing an anti-spam policy. they still get black-listed > (and rightly so) when they're caught running open relays or refuse to > terminate a spammer's account. the truth is that it is ONLY the fact > that various RBLs will list them that has forced them to have an > anti-spam policy and actually enforce it. See above. > unless it affects their bottom-line (i.e. when the costs of supporting > spam are greater than the profits from supporting spam), they don't care > and they're not going to do anything about it. > See above.
