Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I'm not protesting anything.
So blocking Comcast is not a public gesture of disapproval?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=protest
noun definition 2:
"An individual or collective gesture or display of disapproval."
No, it's an effective counter-measure to spam.
I'm refusing to accept email from Comcast until they become
better network citizens in the corporate sense.
Not all protests involve people with signs standing in the street.
Why should I attempt to triage messages from them into spam and non-spam
categories, if they aren't going to make any use of that effort by
investigating
the spam complaints?
I will work with them when they're ready to work with me.
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.
I hate to say it, but blocking based on return-path is an even greater waste of
time. Return-paths are readily forged.
Which is why I block on incoming IP addresses. It's an artifact of Sendmail
to not generate an error response until the MAIL FROM: has been seen...
While I'll agree that RDNS blocking isn't the greatest tool in the world, it's
certainly thousand times more useful in spam blocking than return-path.
Perhaps, but I'm not doing anything with Return-paths.
Telnet to my server and check for yourself.
-Philip
