Philip Prindeville wrote: > Matt Kettler wrote: > >> Philip Prindeville wrote: >> >> >>> I.e. any provider or country that doesn't have an institutional policy >>> of prosecuting spam senders... >>> >> Erm, so you're going to block all of the US, correct? >> >> > > No. We have laws against spam that hopefully most legitimate ISP's > attempt > to conform to.
Erm, no we don't. U-CAN-SPAM doesn't exactly count as a law against spam. After all, there's nothing in it that prohibits spamming. As long as you follow a few rules about the format you can carpet bomb people with spam all you like. > >> No Phillip, You currently block comcast SERVER addresses. I use >> comcast's relays. I do NOT direct deliver. My message sent directly to >> you bounced. >> >> > > Then I've not deduced what addresses are used for users and which > block is allocated to servers... Fair enough. This conversation started when I pointed out you were blocking comcast's *entire* network. I did so because you failed to accept mail properly relayed through their servers. > > >> Earlier I suggested you should do this, and you essentially blew me off. >> Now you're trying to claim this is the configuration you use, when >> evidence suggests otherwise. >> >> > > You said that I was blocking based on Return-path:'s, and your > argument was predicated on that. > > I don't block on Return-path's, as I've hopefully made clear. Yes, you made that clear in your last message in this thread.. I'm still unsure why you waited so long to point out your policy. Your earlier messages simply stated you block comcast. You made no qualifications about not blocking servers when you stated: "And I don't accept email from carriers that have a policy of not investigating external spam complaints. " That's a statement has a pretty strong implication that you aren't intending a partial block, but a complete absolute block of the whole ISP. > > It's possible that the addresses that I block include both server and > user addresses and that I've not partitioned correctly. > > Do you have a complete list of IP CIDR blocks used by Comcast, > or know where they can be found? No I don't but I can point out the following smarthost servers (extracted from my own posts to the list) these hosts appear to be multi-homed with multiple IPs (try an A record query for one, you should get back several addresses).. I've organized them by IP range for your convenience. rwcrmhc11.comcast.net 204.127.192.81 rwcrmhc12.comcast.net 204.127.192.82 rwcrmhc13.comcast.net 204.127.192.83 rwcrmhc14.comcast.net 204.127.192.84 rwcrmhc15.comcast.net 204.127.192.85 rwcrmhc11.comcast.net 204.127.198.35 rwcrmhc12.comcast.net 204.127.198.39 rwcrmhc13.comcast.net 204.127.198.39 rwcrmhc12.comcast.net 204.127.192.82 rwcrmhc13.comcast.net 204.127.192.83 rwcrmhc14.comcast.net 204.127.192.84 rwcrmhc12.comcast.net 216.148.227.85 rwcrmhc14.comcast.net 216.148.227.89 rwcrmhc11.comcast.net 216.148.227.151 rwcrmhc12.comcast.net 216.148.227.152 rwcrmhc13.comcast.net 216.148.227.153 rwcrmhc14.comcast.net 216.148.227.154 > > I'm not sure I trust their SPF records... Comcast doesn't have any SPF records. > (actually, I doubt that they > allow zone transfers anyway) What does zone transfer have to do with SPF? Why would you want to zone transfer just to get a SPF record when it's a couple of TXT queries at most?
