On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:26:35AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote: > > We might disable the RBL based rules in flagging spam; they do seem to > have a rather high false-positive rate.
Whether it's appropriate for the xpert list to partipcate in the
social pressure aspect of DNSBLs (RBL is a trademark of MAPS BTW), or
not, I will not comment, but just keep in mind that one of the reasons
for building (some at least) DNSBLs is to exact a social pressure on
the owner of the listed host[1].
If multiple BLs are listing a single host and that host is a regular
mail exchanger for a given domain, there must be good reason for the
multiple listings. Is the owner of said host doing all that he
should/could be to deal with the spam problem? Or perhaps the sending
IP is a "subscriber" IP of some sort. They should be using their ISP
assigned mail exchanger. Or maybe the sending IP has an open proxy
on it, etc.
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
b.
[1] This technique works over and over again when all else has
failed. Heck, just look at Korea, finally sitting up and
realizing that they as a whole country need to do something about
their spam problem before the whole net is shut off to them.
--
Brian J. Murrell
msg11186/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
