Philip Prindeville wrote: > Matt Kettler wrote: > >> Philip Prindeville wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> Philip will get no further help from me until he modifies his ACLs. >> >> Final-Recipient: rfc822; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Action: failed >> Status: 5.1.0 MAIL FROM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 550 REPLY: >> 550_5.0.0_This_provider_is_blacklisted >> >> Sorry, I don't help people who block off entire email domains >> containing millions of users and then request help on a global >> mailing list. >> >> > > And I don't accept email from carriers that have a policy of not > investigating external spam complaints. > > When Comcast researches complaints from outside sources that > their users are a spam source (and not just complaints from others > of their own subscribers) then I'll stop blocking them.
While I can understand that, and I'm certainly no fan of comcast's incident handling, do realize that you won't get any help from me as long as you're blocking comcast. In general I view blanket blocklisting of a large-scale ISP domain as a method of last resort reserved for ISPs with truly egregious problems. Also realize that nearly all of your comcast spam problems do not have comcast email addresses as a return-path, and do not come through comcast's smarthosts. They come direct from end-user nodes with your typical spammer random return-path. So while blocking email with a comcast.net return-path is a good protest against the ISPs policies, it's going to do very little to aid your spam problems. Make sure you're using a DUL RBL or blocking by RDNS of the delivering IP, that will be considerably more effective against spam. > >
