Most DNSBLs are reasonably clear about what they block and what they don't.
I'd agree wholeheartedly that full disclosure should be the name of the
game, and it isn't always.
Yes. However, this is becoming a marketing ploy. ISP's are competing by making claims for the amount of spam that they block. Judging from the Verizon forum (subscribers can opt in or out of spam filtering) users expect that the Spam handling is some form of digital magic. While the DNSBL may be clear, who's to say that the responsible party at the ISP is clear. Ultimately, though, it's the user that is affected and information to that level is very esoteric.
>Then there are other problems. Would you believe that EVERY time I make an
>ON-LINE post to the Yahoo Blat group, I get a message that my post was
>rejected due to Osirus' DNS RBL? Osirus actually creating spam :-). Take a
>look at the news group to confirm.
More precisely, the mailserver your message was gated to is creating the
unwanted email.
I'm referring to On-Line posts. No mail intervention that I know of. Frankly, I found it rather humorous.
Filtering is far from perfect, in theory or in implementation. I'd agreeI'd like to know your ideas in the alternative. If I had the time, I would start a boycott campaign If spamming cost more in lost sales than what is gained it might decrease (it will never stop). Whatever people try to do between the spammer and the ISPs is probably just the work-around du jour. Pattern filters DO work (well they work for me) and they are very low maintenance. Of course getting rid of "Three Teen Virgins Tow Goats and a Donkey" is one thing; I certainly sympathize with any network administrator that has to deal with this on a professional level.
with Tom Geller (unofficially :-) when he says it's the wrong solution.
It's not a solution at all, it's a stopgap bandaid measure. It sucks! If
spam hadn't become the hellish epidemic that it has, I'd be very opposed to
filtering entirely
