> Dnia 8.09.2026 o godz. 09:32:03 Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop > pisze: > > 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. > > You are right when it comes to *most* DNSBLs (well, the famous DNSBL "whose > name should not be mentioned" does *not* belong to this category). I have > nothing against DNSBLs that list IPs that actually sent spam. On the > contrary, I consider them a very useful tool that I use as well.
Spam isn't the only criteria used by DNSBLs, as there are different types of network abuse. I like DNSBLs that document their general criteria (e.g., spam, cartooney legal threats, open proxies/relays, dark hacking attempts, phishing, TOR/VPN exit nodes, etc.) and then list IPv4/IPv6 addresses/netblocks and/or domain names that match the criteria. DNSBLs are useful, including the less consistent ones, and I use most of them for scoring rather than outright blocking anything that isn't protected by whitelists. > My comment was rather referring to people who preemptively, manually block a > whole ISP, thus hurting the customers of that ISP who are not spammers and > send legitimate mail. It's not hurting them because contacting their ISP's technical support department is not harmful -- technical support is supposed to be helpful, after all, but that's not my concern if they can't resolve the problem, nor should it be obligated in any way because I don't work for their ISP (e.g., as an employee). If this is how it plays out, then the customer does have options, including requesting escalation of the problem to higher level of technical support or requesting managment review, or taking no action and just putting up with the problem, or switching to a different provider that isn't blacklisted, etc. > Should putting pressure on an ISP justify hurting of innocent customers of > that ISP? That is the question... No, but there is no Lumber Cartel so - innocent or guilty.- customers are not being hurt (assuming their provider's technical support team isn't abusing them). That philosophical question actually isn't for me, or any other postmaster (not from said ISP), or any DNSBL operator, because it's actually a question for said customer's ISP ... and a reasonable follow-up would be "What is said ISP doing to resolve the problem?" since it's actually their responsibility to ensure their customers are reasonably receiving the services they're paying for. -- 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
