From: mouss (no email)
Date: Sat Nov 04 2006 - 06:26:04 EST
Jorey Bump wrote:
> mouss wrote:
>
>> yes. but having been listed for almost a year on sorbs-dul, I don't
>> go sorbs that easily;-p. This is why I prefer mixing both dyn-like
>> regexps and lists.
>> - if hosts matches "loose" patterns and is listed (sorbs-dul or
>> njabl-dul), then grey
>> - if host matches "strong" patterns, GL. (because lists will never
>> include _all_ dynamic hosts).
>>
>> example of "loose" would be /dynamic/ (which may match a static
>> host), while /\.dynamic\./ would rarely match a static host (and
>> since we are only doing GL, consequences are minimized).
>
> Because this is for greylisting, the consequences are almost
> eliminated. So why maintain regex lists at all? If an RBL can be
> consulted without an outright block, it's safe for legitimate hosts to
> be caught in a net they can easily escape.
I'd say this is recipient dependent. for people who want "quick mail",
it is easier to tell them "seen his hostname? hope your business doesn't
depend on people who can't buy a fancy name..." rather than "At the time
of posting, he was listed on something called a DUL. I can post you
links about this....".
>
> I've also had problems with the SORBS DUL (but was delisted quickly),
> and dislike denying access due to fuzzy name matching. It reminds me
> of a certain 2000 Florida presidential election... :)
:)
|
|
|