On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:53:34AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Peter van Dijk writes:
> > On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 08:22:41AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > > Yup. I'm just going by history here. MAPS has never abused their
> > > position, whereas ORBS is known to block non-spammers simply because
> > > they refuse to allow ORBS to scan them.
> >
> > Argh. Get that misconception *out your head*.
> >
> > People who disallow ORBS to scan them get listed as *untestable*, not as
> > *open relays*. ORBS doesn't block.
>
> Are these records in relays.orbs.org? How can you say that ORBS
> doesn't block them, then? Oh, I see, ORBS made up their own semantics
> for the DNS zone entries. Semantics which nobody else uses.
There are no defined standards for these zone entries. ORBS uses one
standard. MAPS uses another.
> > Hint: use outputs.orbs.org instead of relays.orbs.org if your RBL-checker
> > is buggy. That way it will only block open relays and allow untested hosts
> > through.
>
> That's very nice, but what about the people blocking using
> relays.orbs.org? Who told them that they would find DNS entries
> belonging to hosts which had never spammed? This is other than what
> people were led to expect. It's Yet Another reason why ORBS is not to
> be trusted.
I admit that this is a design misfeature. Moving the untestable hosts from
the relays.orbs.org zone to another, leaving just relays in
relays.orbs.org, is one of the main changes we are proposing to Alan.
Greetz, Peter.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]
