Absolutely agreed. pbh
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Matthew Bramble > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > > > Don't get me wrong, I will use .6 (and will configure it probably > tonight since I finished some other testing), but I will > score it fairly > low because anything that tags something like Cox is > problematic. Same > goes for FIVETEN, they are tagging Yahoo/SBC. > > 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. > >>> > >>>.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.
