>I haven't been very effective at convincing people to
>change something on their end, when they say that the only place their
>mail doesn't get delivered is here. Most don't know how to spell DNS,
>either.
That's a common response "Most people can send me mail, so why should I fix
anything?".
>Does MAPS return anything which would indicate the IP is IANA
>reserved?
I don't believe so.
>This is only a potential problem when checking beyond HOP 0
>against RBL and RBL+.
... and any other spam test that blacklists those IPs (I don't know offhand
if any do, but it is likely).
>If I whitelist an IANA Reserved block for the purposes of HOP 1 that
>will whitelist the e-mail even if it fails other fatal tests for HOP
>0.
Correct.
>So, that's not a very good solution. I can whitelist addresses
>after the fact, but that means the customer had called and complained
>or I caught it by accident. Also, not so good.
That IS good. People who are making the spam problem worse really should
go through that inconvenience (in my opinion). If they set up their
networks properly, the mail would have gone through, and the spam problem
would be easier for you to deal with.
>IANA has had most of those blocks reserved for a very long time. The
>dates were included in the original e-mail. I realize they could
>release them, but I don't think it is very likely. Even if they did
>release some, it is doubtful that it would be many.
Um... there's a reason those IP ranges were reserved. I don't know offhand
what the reasons were, but there was a reason. The point of reserving them
is so that people don't use them. If there wasn't a reason for reserving
them, IANA could simply release them, helping alleviate the shortage of IPs.
>If Declude ignored them for HOPs greater than 0 and IANA later released
>one, someone
>would most surely discover it so it could be fixed.
I'm not sure if it is worth the extra effort to help these people that are
making the spam problem worse. You have to take a stand somewhere (like
people did with open relays, which are RFC-compliant).
Note that RFC1918 -- the very one that gives the "safe" private IPs --
specifies that if you want to use other ones, you are required to obtain
them from an Internet registry.
There are other problems with people using these invalid IPs -- for
example, their routing information can leak out to their ISP.
>We're only talking about testing MAPS (RBL and RBL+) for HOPs which
>are greater than zero.
Have you asked MAPS about this? If not blocking reserved IPs is a good
solution, wouldn't it be better for MAPS to take out those IPs from their
database?
-Scott
---
[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.
