Matt Kettler wrote:
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.
I guess my last few experiences with Comcast lead me to
categorize them as egregious.
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.
Right. I believe that most ISP should have outgoing port 25 blocked
unless special provisions have been made, but that's my (fascist) point
of view.
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.
I'm not protesting anything.
I'm refusing to accept email from Comcast until they become
better network citizens in the corporate sense.
A lot of ISP's don't provide RDNS for their IP pools... and with the advent
of PPPoA and PPPoE, DSL and Cable subscribers can have addresses
change in a matter of hours (as opposed to staying current for weeks at a
time which happens with DHCP, since you can continue to renew your
current allocation)... just as it does for dialup users when they hang up
and redial.
So my experience is that blocking based on rDNS is a waste of time,
and a lot of people on the mimedefang mailing list agree with that.
-Philip
