- Previous message: mouss: "Re: Rejecting mails received from localhost"
- Maybe in reply to: Administrator: "Re: camomile.cloud9.net listed on SORBS (OT)?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: mouss (no email)
Date: Sat May 21 2005 - 21:01:34 EDT
Robin Lynn Frank wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 09:08, Administrator wrote:
>
>>I had wanted to avoid this subject, but Mr. Sullivan's response to the list
>>is a further demonstration of the problems with SOME blacklists.
>>
>
> I'll snip the rest so we don't have to endure it again.
>
> There is a tendency to blame DNSBL/RHSBLs when they do something that we
> think is not appropriate. IMHO, any admin who gives up control of
> his/her own server to others, deserves whatever happens.
agreed. but,
- some airlines companies are illegal whatever customers think. this is
true for a lot of jobs. the reason is that as a "normal guy" I am not
supposed to be aware of all tricks...
- just because one needs to check doesn't mean anyone is free to do what
he wants. otherwise, I would have the right to trap ignorant people.
- lists are supposed to be good, and are then listed in howtos/faqs/...
so a lot of people just copy/paste. in theory that's their problem. in
practice, it is not.
>
> We started out using DNSBL/RHSBLs. We reduced our dependency on them as
> we built up our own anti-spam tools. Today, the only DNSBL/RHSBLs we
> use are our own in-house ones.
>
> If people are too lazy to do anything but throw a bunch or RBLs in their
> configuration, and are willing to depend on people they don't know from
> a hole in the wall, they really shouldn't complain when unanticipated
> results occur. Its their own fault.
so I can sell atomic bombs and say: DISCLAIMER: do not use my bombs?
come on...
every guy running a BL knows that it will be used for good or for bad.
in the present case, the sorbs list has just confirmed its death. It was
already suspicious. We now have a clear understading of why it is
unreliable.
|
|
|