> Dnia 6.09.2026 o godz. 15:56:22 Jarland Donnell via mailop pisze:
> > Expanding this a bit further, the safest policy is to never accept
> > any email at all from HostPapa ranges. Extremely minimal loss, in
> > fact zero loss for almost anyone. Very high gains.
>
> Probably my opinion is not very popular here, but I want to stress out that
> besides statistics ("gains" vs "losses") there are actual, indvidiual people
> behind email as well. And these people *do* matter.
Indeed, and yet abusive people matter in different ways from
non-abusive people...
Spammers are the abusers in various ways, primarily because they're
stealing bandwidth and disrespecting non-abusive people by running
roughshod over consent ("confirmed opt-in" is something that spammers
tend to detest or just completely ignore).
> Block the spammers of course, but if there is even one IP address within the
> "spammy" range that sends legitimate emails and not spam, and you get to
> know about it, you should whitelist that one particular IP, instead of
> blaming the sender for choosing "wrong" neighborhood to host their server.
Unfortunately, that takes pressure off of abusive internet providers
as it's one of the fundamental aspects of mail server blacklists is
to put pressure onto internet providers to take the spam and related
network abuse problems seriously.
There's some painful history here that goes back to the 1990s, when
many ISPs providing eMail services to their users weren't aware
because spamming wasn't as common as it is today -- many providers
didn't want to lose customers, including spammers, and simply didn't
bother to deal with spam complaints. So, blacklists were created and
used widely to apply pressure to ISPs to take the spam problem
seriously, and it was effective, but by no means a happy solution.
There are multiple reasons why this was painful, because some ISPs
blamed the blacklist operators and coached their users to direct
frustrations directly there instead of fixing the problem on their
end (e.g., by closing an open relay, terminating spammers' accounts,
etc.). Some blacklist operators were also sued by spammers (I was
one of many people who donated money to some blacklist operators to
help them pay for their legal defense costs). There were also some
threats of violence from spammers. A few people also lost their jobs
(I know of a few instances of that). Much of this strife can be
found in an old Usenet Newsgroup called NANAE, but most ISPs gave up
on NNTP because it became almost completely overrun by spammers.
> It's like considering someone guilty of murder by default, because he/she
> lives in a neighborhood where a lot of murderers live. We should never
> believe in "collective responsibility". Everybody is responsible for their
> own actions and for their own actions only, not for what their parents,
> children, friends or neighbors do.
No, it's not like falsely considering someone guilty of murder, and
it's also not the default -- blacklists are typically evidence-based,
relying on evidence of past and/or on-going abusive behaviour(s) from
specific sources like IP addresses. The reliable DNSBLs with
reasonable policies applied consistently tend to be more widely-used.
The message is simple: Don't want your mail servers blacklisted?
Secure your systems properly and don't do business with spammers.
> Of course, many of you will disagree. I know it as this discussion has been
> here many times. But I will hold on to my position and never change it.
I disagree because I think that equating anti-abuse mechanisms (like
blacklists) with accusing people of murder is extreme, and choosing
to hold such a position seems sorely misplaced to me, for I've never
accused anyone of murder for network abuse, or for supporting network
abuse (knowingly or unknowingly).
My suggestion to you is to reconsider your assessment methodology,
and to understand the gravity of internet provicer costs of not
blocking sources of spam, and the problems that many end users face
when they fall victim to a scam that was spammed to them -- some
victims have lost a lot, including their friends, identities,
privacy, life savings, and so on.
If your internet provider is blacklisted and your eMail is being
rejected because of DNSBL matches, then you need to have a
conversation with your provider that encourages them to resolve the
network abuse problems emanating from their systems, because not
resolving that problem (e.g., by securing systems and terminating
spammer accounts) will almost certainly not result in de-listings.
--
Postmaster - [email protected]
Randolf Richardson, CNA - [email protected]
Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.
Vancouver, Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
https://www.inter-corporate.com/
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
