From: /dev/rob0 (no email)
Date: Wed Dec 01 2004 - 00:40:13 EST
On Tuesday 30 November 2004 19:32, Thomas Zehetbauer wrote:
> some days ago I found my mail to be bounced because of my _static_ IP
> being listed in mail-abuse.com's dial-up list.
>
> This is not the first time my messages are blocked because some
> irresponsible DNSBL provider has added my static IP to their dynamic
> range blocking list.
Hi Tom,
To start off I'll say I largely agree with Craig's reply. I do,
however, feel your pain, and therefore I offer you more sympathy than
Craig did. :)
In many cases of dynamic RBL's, the ISP has provided the IP range to
list maintainers. So really, that's your gripe: with the ISP. They sold
you a static IP under false pretenses. Demand that they make it right.
Ideally, be prepared to walk if not given satisfaction.
> Unfortunately none of these lists seems to be even close to being
> well maintained and it usually takes weeks to get an unlisted. Using
I can't say with authority, but I do think very highly of the Spamhaus
project. Of course it's a different situation to try to maintain a list
of real spammers vs. a list of dynamic IP ranges. The best lists *do*
correct their erroneous listings, but I wouldn't want them to do it
without checking. (I am fascinated with the PSBL which allows *anyone*
an automated list removal tool, but I've seen too many false positives
with it to be able to rely on it.)
> my ISP's mail server as DNSBL providers recommend is not an option
> and only makes things worse:
Again, more cause to complain. If you must give your money to an ISP,
demand fair value. You're not getting it.
> 1.) We live in a time of more surveillance than ever before. Using
And a very cordial tip o' the tinfoil hat back at you, sir! I agree
completely. This is another reason why I offer you my sympathy.
> 2.) I am not willing to include my ISP's mail relay and thereby it's
> 280,000 customers in my domain's SPF record.
Quite sensible.
> 3.) Using my own mail server I can verify that and when a message has
> been delivered to the recipient's server. Have you ever tried to get
> this information from your ISP?
It's very nice to run your own MTA, indeed.
> 4.) Some people argue that using the ISP's mail relay would allow
> then to early detect and stop spammers, but if every customer of my
> ISP only sends 10 messages per day this makes 2,280,000 messages.
> This gives me good reason to doubt they would notice a few spammers
> abusing their mail servers.
My home ISP is notoriously bad at dealing with abuse. So is my soon-to-
be-former co-lo ISP, he.net. I don't have a choice about the home ISP
(no other broadband choice, that is: I could revert to 28.8K dialup),
but I won't tolerate spam-friendly co-location hosts. I'm a strict
Boulder Pledge adherent.
> 5.) My ISP's mail server has a history of loosing messages and being
> blacklisted for sending spam on behalf of clueless end users who run
Pointing more and more to the ISP, Tom!
> For the evil to win it just takes the good to look away long enough
> and I am no longer willing to look away when evil $$$ companies
> destroy the internet.
Your ISP is among them. RBL providers are not!
> Someone even warned me that he has brought up
> this discussion before and was punished by DNSBL providers with
> several ill-founded blacklist entries for his 'bad attitude'.
It can happen. I can identify with how they feel, too. Spam is a HUGE
problem. These mentally and morally deficient sub-humanoids have
gravely damaged the infrastructure of Internet mail, offering nothing
of value to anybody in return. They've given rise to whole new sectors
of the global economy, devoted to eradication of spam (and MS Windows
spyware, a close sibling.) Waste, all of it!
RBL's are an important and effective tool in the war against these
invertebrates. Tom, if you were at the helm of a commercial MTA you
would see this. It's so much better to reject suspected spam in the
SMTP dialogue, so that real senders (such as yourself) know right away
and can find other means of conveying their message.
I manage 3 Postfix sites and numerous qmail sites for small businesses.
(We're migrating from qmail because it's less capable in spam
fighting.) With Postfix I've seen 71-92% rejection rates! This is
attributable almost entirely to RBL's. With careful RBL selection you
can do this with very little risk of false positives.
YMMV, of course. My home domain does fine with almost no spam
protection, because we've been careful in how and where we use it.
We're not getting in spam lists. But clueless users who are not in
close contact with administrators don't know how to be careful.
I'm sure you're not a spammer, Tom, else I could not be cordial to you.
In closing I have what I hope is a useful suggestion. Have you looked
at co-location, dedicated servers, and virtual servers? I've had one of
the latter for some time now. Very affordable, and gives you the
complete control over your mail that you and I both want. (Too bad it
happened to be hosted at Hurricane Electric, sigh.)
Co-location and dedicated servers tend to cost more, but perhaps you
could pool your resources with like-minded people. In fact a group of
my friends are now looking at getting a shared co-lo server.
Best of luck to you. Please, unless you can think of a way to make the
discussion pertinent to Postfix, direct replies off-list.
--
mail to this address is discarded unless "/dev/rob0"
or "not-spam" is in Subject: header
|
|
|