Adam Funk wrote:
On Sunday 20 November 2005 10:20, Peter Bowyer wrote:
That makes sense really, because the intent of such a DNSBL is to list
IPs which are in the 'probably belongs to a home user who might be
more likely to harbour a trojan spambot, and who has an alternative
route for outbound email via their ISP's relays' class. The 'dynamic'
tag is merely a shortcut, and doesn't cover the whole scope.
It's one thing for admins to say, "We regret inflicting the collateral
damage on all home users but we feel we have to to blacklist dynamic IPs
because of all the infected Windows machines." But it's just obnoxious
snobbery to say that all home users *should* be blocked.
What about some responsibility among blacklist operators? Why not provide
a way for users who pass some tests to register dyndns-type hostnames for
whitelisting?
At risk of being regarded as rude and unhelpful, I'd suggest
that such is not the list operator's job. They're merely
offering a list to MTA admins, not dictating that it be used
nor how. If the MTA admins want to punch holes in a list
used as a blacklist, perhaps by overlaying a different list
used as a whitelist, they can. If they want to maintain
such a list, intended to be used as a whitelist, they can -
and if they want to offer that list to others, they can.
In the meantime, any argument should be between the users
at each end of a mail connection, and their mail admins.
But this is not really an Exim topic, and might be better
carried on in news.admin.net-abuse.email.
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
