It's good to know when a particular list is blocking a major provider. Hopefully lists like SpamCop, which I rely on heavily, won't ever do something like this.
Matt
Phillip B. Holmes wrote:
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.block anything
.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
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.
